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. The description indicates this is a search/read operation (implied by 'Search contacts') and mentions pagination parameters (page, per_page), which suggests paginated results. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation versus a mutation.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It begins with the core purpose, provides important sibling differentiation, then lists parameters with brief explanations, and concludes with return information. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, search functionality) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description provides good contextual coverage. It explains the tool's purpose, distinguishes it from alternatives, documents all parameters, and mentions the return type. The main gap is lack of behavioral transparency details that would be important for a search tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful parameter information beyond what the schema offers. It documents all 6 parameters with brief explanations of their purpose (e.g., 'Filter by contact stage IDs', 'Filter by owner user ID', 'Filter by sequence IDs'). While it doesn't provide detailed format requirements or constraints, it adds substantial value over the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Search') and resource ('contacts in your Apollo CRM/database'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'people_search' by explaining that this searches contacts already added to the user's Apollo account, while people_search searches Apollo's global database.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives by stating 'Unlike people_search which searches Apollo's global database, this searches contacts you've already added to your Apollo account.' This clearly differentiates the tool from its most relevant sibling and provides context for appropriate usage.

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