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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds pagination behavior (max 100 per page, follow next page_number until empty), which is useful, but says nothing about match semantics (partial vs exact), permissions, or result contents.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and searchable fields, then pagination in a compact second sentence. The trailing internal reference 'Contact.SearchContacts.' is clutter but minor.

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 read-only search tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers domain scoping, empty-search behavior, and paging until empty. It is nearly complete, missing only how matching works (substring vs exact) and a brief note on returned contact fields.

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 100%, so every parameter including enums is already documented. The description's field list largely duplicates the search_option enum and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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, including customers and suppliers) and enumerates the searchable fields, so an agent can tell this is the contact-search tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling yuki_search_documents, relying on the resource name to make the distinction.

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 (search by field, empty search lists all) and gives a pagination loop, but never states when to prefer this over sibling search/list tools or what prerequisites (domain id) are needed.

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