apple_contacts_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search fields but omits key traits: whether it is read-only (presumed), what is returned (list of contacts? specifics?), pagination behavior, case sensitivity, or ordering. For a search tool, these are important for the agent to understand the output.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word carries meaning, and it is as concise as possible while communicating the core functionality.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what fields are searched. However, it does not specify the return format, empty-result behavior, or any filtering nuances. Given the tool's low complexity, this is a marginal score.

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% (both 'query' and 'limit' have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema: 'search by name, email, or company' is already captured by the schema's 'matches name, email, or company' for the query parameter. The limit parameter is self-explanatory. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the work.

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 by name, email, or company' clearly states the verb (search), resource (contacts), and specific searchable fields. It distinguishes from siblings like apple_contacts_get (which retrieves a specific contact) and apple_contacts_company (which likely filters by company), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apple_contacts_get, apple_contacts_company, or apple_contacts_recent. It lacks any when-not-to-use or prerequisite information, which is needed for proper selection among sibling tools.

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