search_contact_groups

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. The readOnlyHint is false, which is ambiguous for a search operation, but the description does not clarify side effects, return format, or permissions.

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 phrase that simply restates the tool name, providing no additional information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, as there is no substantive content to evaluate.

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 a required free-form body parameter and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the body accepts, what results are returned, or how pagination and ordering interact with the search.

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 the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics; the required 'body' parameter remains vague ('as defined by the bexio API'), and the description does not explain how to construct search criteria.

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 uses a clear verb+resource pattern ('Search contact groups'), making the primary action evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as list_contact_groups or get_contact_group, so it lacks sibling 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this search tool versus list_contact_groups, get_contact_group, or other alternatives. The description provides no context, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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