search_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that IDs are returned and includes a '[User Identity]' prefix, but it does not clarify whether the search is scoped globally, requires specific permissions, or if any side effects exist. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence of 10 words, tightly packed with essential information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains 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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to convey the essential behavior. It explains the search target and the output type (IDs), but does not specify result limits, ordering, or whether the search covers all contacts or is scoped to the current user's identity. This leaves some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 input schema provides a generic 'Search keyword' description, and the tool description adds the clarification that the keyword is a 'name', which improves understanding. Since schema coverage is 100%, the added 'by name' context merits a score above baseline.

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: searching for Feishu users, bots, or group chats by name, and returning IDs. This distinguishes it from other search tools like search_messages or search_docs, and the specific resource (contacts) and output (IDs) are explicit.

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 usage when you need to find a contact's ID by name, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_user_info or list_profiles, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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