contacts_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose matching behavior (partial vs exact), case sensitivity, output format, pagination, or account handling. This is thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the key action and target. No filler, every word earns its place. Ideal conciseness.

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 simple search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return value expectations, search scoping, and how it differs from contacts_list. It is minimally adequate but leaves important completeness gaps.

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%: all three parameters (query, account, max_results) have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource 'Outlook contacts' with searchable fields (name, email, phone). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling contact_list (which lists) and outlook_search (which may cover broader Outlook items).

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 implies usage for finding contacts by query but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. With sibling contact_list available, the lack of a note about search vs list is a gap, but the intended use is reasonably inferable.

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