search_contacts

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

The description offers no behavioral information beyond the annotations. It does not disclose whether the search is read-only, how pagination works, or what happens with archived contacts, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema and 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 extremely short, but not appropriately concise—it omits essential information about the tool's behavior and parameters. It is under-specified rather than economically complete.

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?

With five parameters, a complex body array, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain the request body structure, search semantics, or return format, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter context, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Search contacts' essentially restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like list_contacts or clarify what 'search' entails (filters, output shape).

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 provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_contacts or search_contact_groups. The description gives no context about the intended use case.

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