outlook_list_contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, describing a safe read operation. The description adds the cursor pagination detail. Otherwise no extra info on rate limits, permissions, or other behavioral traits. Adequate but minimal 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?

Two clean sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with core functionality, then usage distinction. 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?

The description is adequate for a simple list tool with pagination, but lacks details about what the tool returns (e.g., list of contacts). Given no output schema, some mention of the response would improve completeness.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It mentions 'cursor pagination' which loosely relates to the cursor parameter, but provides no explanation of count, cursor format, or how they work. Very limited added 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists contacts with cursor pagination (verb+resource+pagination). It hints at a different use vs. the delta variant, but doesn't explicitly distinguish from other contact listing tools like outlook_search_contacts.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (one-shot queries) and when to use an alternative (outlook_list_contacts_delta for polling/recurring). This is clear and differentiation guide.

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