m365_contacts_people_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by indicating 'relevance-ranked' ordering and the source of people (mailbox, directory, both), plus the limitation of not exposing private lists. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose, data sources, and an important exclusion. It is front-loaded with the primary function and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema) and strong safety annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: what it searches, how results are ranked, and what it excludes. It lacks explicit mention of the 'personType' filter or 'includeProfile' option, but those are described in the schema. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand the tool's scope and important caveats.

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 80%, with most parameters explained in the schema. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters, but the 'relevance-ranked' and 'mailbox vs directory' framing adds some context to the 'source' parameter. Since the schema covers most semantics, the description provides marginal 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's function: 'Find relevance-ranked people for recipient selection using mailbox signals, the organization directory, or both.' It specifies the verb 'Find', the resource 'people for recipient selection', and distinguishes itself from related tools like m365_contacts_list and m365_contacts_search by highlighting its focus on mailbox/directory signals and its explicit exclusion of private Outlook Contact Lists.

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 description implies usage for recipient selection in mail scenarios and clarifies that it does not expose private Outlook Contact Lists, which warns against using it for that purpose. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for contact list access or provide direct when-to-use vs. sibling tool guidance. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions beyond the private list limitation.

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