outlook_list_contacts_delta

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and description adds important behavioral details: tombstones (is_deleted=True items should be dropped), pagination (has_more means drain immediately), and cost implications. No contradictions.

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?

Extremely concise yet comprehensive. First sentence clearly states purpose, followed by usage guidance, example, and edge cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 delta/polling tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return behavior (tombstones, has_more), pagination strategy, and cost benefits. Complete enough for effective use.

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 compensate. It explains delta_token as a token from prior response and the has_more pattern, but does not detail page_size defaults or ranges. Adequate for context.

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?

Description clearly states 'List only contact changes since the last call' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like outlook_list_contacts (full list) and outlook_list_events_delta (different resource).

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 recommends use for polling/recurring agents, notes cost advantage over outlook_list_contacts, and advises using outlook_list_contacts for one-shot queries. Provides example usage and explains pagination with has_more and delta_token.

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