search_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states it is a search operation that returns IDs, leaving out behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, error handling, or implications of no results. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 very brief, using a single sentence plus a prefix tag. Every word serves a purpose except possibly the '[User Identity]' prefix, which may be confusing. Overall, it is efficiently front-loaded but the prefix could be clearer.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and input. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., structure of IDs) and does not explain edge cases like no matches. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The single parameter 'query' is described in the schema as 'Search keyword'. The description adds value by specifying that the search is 'by name', which provides more precise meaning for the parameter beyond the schema's generic term.

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?

Description clearly states the action (Search), resource (Feishu users, bots, or group chats), and output (returns IDs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_docs and search_wiki by specifying the entity type and result type.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context is implied by the purpose, but alternatives such as get_user_info or list_profiles are not mentioned. The '[User Identity]' prefix hints at a specific scenario but does not provide clear usage rules.

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