search_contact_sectors

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's basic action. There is no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, response structure, or side effects, so the description contributes nothing beyond the annotations.

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, extremely brief phrase that essentially restates the tool name. While concise, the brevity is due to under-specification rather than efficient communication of key details, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 tool has four parameters, no output schema, and a sibling that lists contact sectors, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on search criteria, pagination, filtering, or how it differs from the list variant, making it incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (body, limit, offset, order_by) documented. The tool description itself adds no information about parameter usage or semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3 without enhancing the schema's 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 states the tool 'Search contact sectors' with a clear verb and resource, indicating it searches for contact sectors. However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_contact_sectors', which likely serves a similar listing purpose, so it lacks scope differentiation.

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 the alternative 'list_contact_sectors' or other search tools. The description provides no context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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