outlook_get_contact

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read, so the description's remaining job is small. "full contact" adds genuine value by indicating a complete record is returned rather than a summary projection, but nothing is said about behavior on an invalid or missing ID.

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?

A single seven-word sentence with zero filler and the key qualifier ("full", "by ID") front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal concision.

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 one-parameter read with readOnlyHint set and no output schema, the essentials are present. Still missing are the ID format and error behavior on a bad ID, which an agent would need to invoke this reliably.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It indicates contact_id is an identifier but gives no format (entry ID vs. email address) or example, leaving the agent to guess what constitutes a valid value.

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 ("Get") and resource ("contact") with a scope qualifier ("one full contact by ID"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like outlook_list_contacts and outlook_search_contacts. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

"by ID" implicitly tells the agent this is a direct-lookup tool requiring a known identifier, which contrasts with list/search siblings. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus outlook_search_contacts or outlook_list_contacts, nor how to obtain the ID.

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