Contacts Search Contacts

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds zero behavioral context beyond that: it does not mention result limits, matching behavior, ordering, or what happens with no results. The description's entire content is a plumbing note about delegation via Apple-Tools-MCP.

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 technically short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence only passes through the tool name and domain context, wasting the only opportunity to convey semantics in an otherwise empty description.

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 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is entirely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what is being searched, what inputs are expected, or what the output contains. The output schema exists but the description adds nothing to make the tool safely or correctly invocable.

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 does not mention either parameter. The description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, but it provides nothing about what 'query' means, whether it is a substring or prefix match, or how 'limit' affects the returned results.

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 a tautology: it merely restates the tool name and its delegation origin ('Delegated Apple domain tool 'contacts_search_contacts' exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP'). It does not state that the tool searches contacts, what fields it searches, or how it differs from siblings like contacts_list_contacts or contacts_resolve_message_recipient.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool versus contacts_list_contacts, contacts_get_contact, or contacts_resolve_message_recipient, nor does it mention any constraints or alternatives.

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