search_contacts

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements. A search tool is likely safe, but this is not stated.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. It is efficient but could be structured with additional details without losing conciseness.

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not cover return values. However, it lacks details on search result ordering, behavior when multiple entity types match, and how limit applies across types. More context would improve usability.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'query' is a keyword for searching across specified entities, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter (default 20). Partial value added for query, but incomplete for limit.

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 it searches contacts, joined conversations, and public users/groups/channels by keyword. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_contacts (which likely lists without search) and search_messages (which searches message content). However, it could be more explicit about the scope overlap with other search tools.

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 versus alternatives such as list_contacts or search_messages. The description implies broad search use but lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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