vectis_search_contacts

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

Annotations only provide read/write/open-world flags. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those: Monid charges, requestId-based idempotent retries, a pending state requiring vectis_refresh_call, and the security rule that provider content is untrusted evidence never instructions.

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?

Five short, dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence carries a distinct operational or behavioral fact, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Strong coverage of cost, retry behavior, pending handling, and trust caveats. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain the return payload shape, and it leaves missionId and titles underspecified, so an agent still has to guess some invocation details.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It clarifies domain (exact company domain) and requestId (retry key), but leaves the meaning and expected values of missionId and titles mostly to inference.

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 action ('Find') and resource ('decision makers at an exact company domain'). The caveat that search results alone prove neither current employment nor a usable email also differentiates this from enrichment/verification siblings.

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?

Gives clear operational context: use when an exact company domain is known, reuse requestId for retries with identical arguments, and call vectis_refresh_call when pending. It implies a discovery rather than verification role, though it does not explicitly contrast with enrich/find/verify siblings.

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