Search Contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that search is by name/email/phone, which gives some matching behavior insight, but does not disclose pagination, result ordering, or whether matching is partial/fuzzy. This is modest additional value beyond annotations and schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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 search tool with two parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is adequate. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema exists. The description covers the core purpose sufficiently, though it omits details about search nuance (e.g., partial matches) which are not critical for this simple tool.

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%: both 'query' and 'count' have descriptions. The description's 'name, email, or phone' largely duplicates the query parameter description, adding no new semantics. Count's default and max are already in the schema. The description does not explain query syntax or result count behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Search contacts by name, email, or phone', identifying the action (search), resource (contacts), and the specific fields searched. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-contacts (listing all) and read-contact (reading a specific contact), as well as search-reminders/search-emails for other resource types.

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 implies usage context: use this tool when you need to find contacts by name, email, or phone. It is clear but does not explicitly state when to prefer list-contacts or read-contact instead, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives directly. However, the context is sufficiently clear from the phrase.

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