contacts_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only says 'List', which implicitly indicates a read operation but does not elaborate on any behavioral traits such as default account handling, pagination, or potential rate limits. The description adds little beyond the basic verb.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose and an optional filter in an efficient, front-loaded manner.

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?

This is a simple list tool with all parameters documented in the schema, but the description doesn't mention return format or how it differs from contacts_search. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally viable but leaves some gaps around expected behavior and alternative usage.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of the parameters, each with a clear description. The description itself repeats the 'filtered by organization or name' notion already present in the schema, adding no new semantic value. Baseline of 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 the tool lists Outlook contacts, with optional filtering. This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool contacts_search, which likely performs a similar function.

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 contacts_search. It only mentions optional filtering, but gives no contextual or exclusionary cues. Sibling tool names suggest overlapping functionality, yet no differentiation is made.

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