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

The description explicitly states 'leitura' (read-only) and mentions bulk support, adding some transparency beyond the annotations. However, the annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects such as pagination or error handling, but it does reinforce the read-only nature.

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 concise and contained within a single sentence, listing actions and filters in a compact manner. The structure is somewhat cluttered due to listing multiple actions, but it remains efficient and does not have redundant content. It effectively communicates the essential information without excessive verbosity.

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?

While the description is brief and lacks details about the output format or pagination behavior, it does include the cursor parameter and mentions bulk support, implying some pagination capability. Given that the tool is a straightforward search operation with an implicit output of matching contacts, the description is reasonably complete for its simplicity, though it could benefit from clarifying what is returned or how cursor is used.

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?

The description lists the search filters: email, doc, name, created_at_ini/end, cursor, and mentions 'ids' for bulk support, covering approximately 7 of 9 schema parameters. It does not explain the 'account' parameter or describe the exact purpose of each filter (e.g., that created_at_ini/end define a date range). The description adds some meaning but not comprehensive parameter explanations.

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 that this tool handles contacts in read-only mode and identifies the primary action as 'search' with specific filter parameters. It distinguishes itself from other contact operations by explicitly listing the search action, though listing multiple actions (search, get, transactions, etc.) in the same description introduces some ambiguity that is partially resolved by the tool name and [Flattened action: search].

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 provides the search filter parameters and notes bulk support for ids, giving some guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like guru_contacts_get, leaving the user to infer that search is for finding contacts while get is for retrieving by id. The guidance is implied but not fully explicit.

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