m365_contacts_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it searches within a folder and filters by categories, but doesn't mention pagination, response format, or any edge cases. With annotations doing most of the work, a 3 is appropriate.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the search criteria and optional filters. No wasted words.

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 schema covers 71% of parameters and annotations cover safety, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details on pagination or return structure, but no output schema exists, so a bit more behavioral description could be useful. Yet for a search tool with good schema coverage, this is sufficient.

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 71%, so the schema covers most parameters. The description adds meaning for query, folderId, and categories, which are not fully described in the schema. However, it doesn't clarify the exact match behavior for query or how folderId and parentFolderId interact, leaving some gaps.

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 searches contacts by name, email, or company, with optional folder scoping and category filtering. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like m365_contacts_list or m365_contacts_read.

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 when to use this tool (searching contacts) versus listing or reading, and gives context for folder and category filtering. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.

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