outlook_search_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation (search) but does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, error handling for invalid KQL queries, or whether it searches personal contacts or an organization-wide directory. The mention of KQL gives some context but lacks detail.

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 sentence of 9 words that is front-loaded, direct, and contains no filler. Every word serves a purpose.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides basic functionality but lacks details on result format, pagination, or maximum result set. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to safely use it without guessing.

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 the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by specifying it searches by name or email using KQL syntax. However, the 'count' parameter (default 25) is not explained, so its role as a limit on results is omitted. Partial compensation.

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 verb 'search', the resource 'contacts', the criteria 'by name or email', and the method 'using KQL query syntax'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like outlook_list_contacts (which lists all contacts) and outlook_get_contact (which retrieves a single contact).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like outlook_list_contacts, outlook_get_contact, or outlook_search_mail. The description only states what it does without advising on selection criteria or prerequisites.

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