search_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states this is a search operation, which implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly disclose side effects, pagination behavior, or default filters like active_only. The schema contains these details, but the description adds limited behavioral context beyond the obvious search semantics. This is adequate but not rich, scoring 3.

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 relatively short but contains redundancy: 'Search for contacts (account contacts) in Autotask.' is followed by 'This tool searches the Autotask contacts database,' which restates the same idea. The information is front-loaded, but every sentence does not earn its place due to this 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and main use cases. It does not explain return values (not needed due to output schema) and does not mention pagination, but the schema covers that. It is complete enough for a search tool, with minor gaps around filtering defaults and relationship to siblings.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual value by mentioning 'contact IDs for filtering ticket searches' and 'contacts associated with a specific company,' which map to query and company_id, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with 'Search for contacts (account contacts) in Autotask,' which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on contacts and mentions concrete use cases like 'looking up contact IDs for filtering ticket searches' and 'exploring contacts associated with a specific company,' clearly differentiating it from search_tickets and search_companies.

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 provides clear contexts for when to use the tool: finding contact information, looking up contact IDs for ticket filtering, and exploring contacts by company. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the use cases imply when it is appropriate. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, matching a 4.

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