hcm_search_contacts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as query matching semantics, pagination behavior, optionality of q/finder, or result shape. There is no contradiction, but the description contributes nothing beyond the annotation.

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 short but not efficiently informative. It is under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness: no parameters, no alternatives, no behavior, and no return information are mentioned.

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 four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling family, this description is far too sparse. An agent cannot determine how to invoke it correctly, what the response contains, or how it relates to hcm_get_contact.

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 0%, and the description says nothing about q, limit, finder, or offset. The 'finder' and 'q' parameters are especially under-specified, leaving the agent to guess valid values and combinations.

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 is essentially the tool name restated ('Search hcmContacts.' vs hcm_search_contacts). It names a verb and a resource but does not define what hcmContacts are, what search criteria apply, or how this differs from hcm_get_contact and the many other search_* sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of hcm_get_contact, hcm_search_workers, hcm_search_public_workers, or other search variants. An agent receives no selection criteria or exclusions.

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