find_contact

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior: rows are returned per audience membership (three lists = three rows) and each row indicates unsubscription status. It stops short of detailing pagination/cursor behavior, but the disclosed semantics substantially exceed a bare verb.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: scope, match modes, and return semantics. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers core selection and invocation needs: cross-audience scope, match modes, and row multiplicity. Minor gaps remain around whether at least one of q/email must be supplied and pagination details, but the schema's next_cursor description mitigates this.

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 80%, so most parameter meaning is already structured. The description adds value by clarifying that email is exact while q is a prefix, and by explaining how results relate to parameters. It does not elaborate limit/cursor, but those are optional and the schema covers cursor.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('contact by address'), and a clear scope ('across every audience') plus the qualifier 'without knowing which list they are on'. This distinguishes it from sibling contact tools such as get_contact or list_audiences by emphasizing cross-audience search.

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 gives explicit invocation guidance: 'Use email for an exact match, or q for a prefix,' which tells the agent which parameter to choose and how matching behaves. It establishes the intended case (searching across lists) but does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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