outlook_search_contacts

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read. The description adds genuine behavioral detail about phone matching (any formatting, optional country code), but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, truncation, or what happens when a broad KQL query returns many matches.

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 short sentences with the primary search behavior front-loaded and the phone special case immediately after. No filler; the only slight awkwardness is the parenthetical '(instead of query)' interrupting the second sentence.

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 3-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the definition covers the core intent and the one non-obvious parameter interaction. The undocumented 'count' is the only real omission, which is a minor gap rather than a blocker to correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does well for 'query' (name/email + KQL) and 'phone' (format-insensitive matching), but 'count' — which has a default of 25 and no documented maximum — is never mentioned, leaving a third of the parameters unexplained.

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 and resource ('Search contacts') plus the matching field ('by name or email') and the query language (KQL). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like outlook_list_contacts or outlook_get_contact, so the agent must infer search-vs-enumerate.

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 second sentence gives a real routing rule: use 'phone' instead of 'query' when looking for a number. But there is no guidance on when to search versus listing contacts, and no note on prerequisites or what to do when no match is found.

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