search_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Read-only', which is a behavioral trait, but lacks details on pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or how the search logic works. Minimal transparency beyond the read-only attribute.

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 very short—one sentence plus a fragment—with no wasted words. It is concise, but could slightly expand on critical usage points without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or how filtering works across contact types. For a search tool with 6 parameters, more contextual information is needed for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it does not explain how 'search_text' interacts with 'contact_types' or the effect of 'sort_by' and 'sort_direction'. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 the verb ('search or list') and resource ('Portal.io contacts'), and adds a behavioral note ('Read-only'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_proposals' and 'search_catalog' by specifying contacts.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools. However, the context of sibling tools makes it clear that this is for contacts, so usage is reasonably implied.

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