outlook_get_contact

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup, but does not disclose what happens if the contact is not found, what account is used, what fields are returned, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core operation efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values or invocation details more fully. Instead, it leaves the name-based lookup mechanism unclear, especially because the input schema is empty, making the definition incomplete for reliable agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema declares zero parameters, giving a nominal baseline of 4. However, the description says the contact is retrieved 'by name,' which implies an input parameter that the schema does not contain. This mismatch reduces clarity about how the tool is actually invoked.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves detailed info for an Outlook contact. It also indicates lookup by name. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similarly named sibling tools such as get_contact, m365_get_contact, or outlook_contacts_search, which may cause selection ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like outlook_contacts_list, outlook_contacts_search, or get_contact. It also does not state prerequisites, such as whether the contact must already exist or whether the comparison is exact or fuzzy.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.