aircall_search_contacts

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds 'Returns matching contacts,' which is somewhat tautological with 'Search' but does clarify the output. It does not disclose matching behavior (exact vs partial), whether parameters can be combined, or pagination. Given the annotation coverage, the description provides minimal additional behavioral context.

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 two short sentences: 'Search contacts by phone number or email. Returns matching contacts.' Every word earns its place. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is zero redundancy.

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, the description covers the core functionality, and annotations handle the read-only safety. However, it leaves ambiguity about how the two optional parameters interact (e.g., AND vs OR), what happens if neither is provided, and whether exact or partial matching is used. These are notable gaps for a search tool, especially since the schema shows both parameters as optional.

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%, with both 'email' and 'phone_number' already described as search criteria. The description's phrase 'by phone number or email' adds no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning fully.

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 function: 'Search contacts by phone number or email.' This uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('contacts'), and explicitly identifies the search criteria. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aircall_list_contacts (list all) and aircall_get_contact (get by ID) by focusing on phone/email lookup.

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 implies the use case: find a contact when you have a phone number or email. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aircall_get_contact or aircall_list_contacts, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is only implicit.

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