crm_search_contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but reveals nothing about behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, pagination behavior, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a search tool with complex filtering capabilities.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. However, it's under-specified rather than concise - it lacks necessary detail for a tool with 5 complex parameters.

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 search tool with 5 parameters (including complex nested filterGroups), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain how to construct queries, what properties are available, pagination via 'after', or what results to expect.

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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'contact-specific filters' but doesn't explain what filterGroups, properties, limit, after, or sorts parameters do, their formats, or how they interact. This leaves critical search functionality undocumented.

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 'Search contacts with contact-specific filters' states the verb (search) and resource (contacts), but is vague about what 'contact-specific filters' means. It doesn't specify what distinguishes this from other search tools like crm_search_companies or crm_search_leads beyond the resource 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crm_get_contact, crm_list_objects, or other search tools. The description implies it's for searching contacts, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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