contact_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about match semantics (partial vs exact), result caps, pagination, or ordering — all relevant for an agent deciding how to interpret or page results.

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?

A single short, front-loaded fragment with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it is a phrase rather than a complete sentence and omits any routing hint.

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 is simple (one required string, no output schema, no nesting), so little explanation is needed. Still missing are match behavior and result-limit details, which matter for an agent composing queries and handling responses.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Search query string'. The description goes beyond that by clarifying which attribute types the query may target (name, email, phone), which meaningfully improves how an agent constructs the value.

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 verb (Search) and resource (contacts) plus the fields matched (name, email, phone), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling contact_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Mentioning that search operates on name/email/phone implies the use case (find a specific contact when you have identifying text), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-contact_list guidance despite the sibling existing.

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