crm_search_contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search functionality without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination via 'after' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no matches are found. For a search tool with complex parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 search tool with 5 parameters (including complex nested structures), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the search logic, result format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'contact-specific filters' which hints at the filterGroups parameter, but doesn't explain any of the other parameters (properties, limit, after, sorts) or their relationships. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 searches contacts with filters, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like crm_search_companies or crm_search_leads, which have identical descriptions except for the resource type. The phrase 'contact-specific filters' is somewhat redundant since the tool name already indicates 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like crm_get_contact (for single contact retrieval) or crm_list_objects (for unfiltered listing), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for searching versus other contact operations.

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