outlook-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating this is a safe read operation with limited scope. The description adds useful context about the data sources (contacts, directory, recent communications) and API differentiation, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or result format details that would be helpful for an agent.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, while the second provides important API differentiation. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

Given this is a search tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but not complete context. It covers purpose, scope, and API differentiation, but doesn't explain what the results look like or provide behavioral details like pagination, sorting, or error handling. For a search tool without output schema, more information about result structure would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (query and count) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 the tool's purpose as searching for people by relevance, specifying the scope (contacts, directory, recent communications). It distinguishes from a sibling tool (manage-contact search) by mentioning a different API, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like search-emails. The verb 'search' and resource 'people' are specific, though the scope could be more precisely defined.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by specifying it searches across contacts, directory, and recent communications, and explicitly mentions it uses a different API from manage-contact search. This helps distinguish it from at least one sibling alternative. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare to other search tools like search-emails.

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