search_contacts

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

The description discloses an important conditional behavior: results may be wrapped in a {'total', 'items'} envelope when a total match count is reported, otherwise a bare array. This adds value beyond the schema and annotations (which are absent). It does not cover other behaviors like sorting or default limits, but the provided detail is meaningful.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a specific behavioral note. No filler or redundant material.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose and a key return-format nuance. It could benefit from mentioning whether results include full contact objects or only IDs, but that is not necessary for basic usage.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that 'query' targets name/email, but this is a minor enhancement over the schema's 'Search query string' and does not substantially clarify parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool's verb 'Search' and resource 'contacts', and specifies the search criteria 'by name or email'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_contacts and get_contact, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied through the search criteria ('by name or email'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_contacts or get_contact. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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