search-people

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

The description confirms the read-only nature (consistent with annotations), specifies the data source (Microsoft Graph People API), lists returned fields, and mentions relevance ranking. This adds useful context beyond annotations.

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 very concise: three sentences with clear structure. First sentence defines purpose, second adds details and usage, third directs to alternative. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, data source, return fields, relevance ranking, and alternative tool. With good schema coverage and no output schema needed (return fields listed), it is complete for selection and invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It mentions 'query' and 'count' implicitly but does not add new information beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states it performs a relevance-ranked search across personal contacts, organization directory, and recent communications via the Microsoft Graph People API. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'manage-contact' with action='search', which is limited to personal contact store.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for 'who is X?' or 'who do I email about Y?' lookups. It also specifies when to use an alternative: use 'manage-contact' action='search' for personal contact store entries only.

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