search-contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states it searches by three fields but omits details like case sensitivity, partial matching support, pagination behavior, or rate limits. The description is minimal, missing crucial operational context.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core action and searchable fields. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While concise, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing criteria explicitly).

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 a simple search with two parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks details on result set handling (e.g., empty results, sorting). It is minimally complete but not rich.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage—both parameters ('query' and 'count') have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema's own descriptions. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('contacts'), and three search criteria ('name, email, or phone'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list-contacts' (which lists all) and 'read-contact' (which reads a single contact).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list-contacts' vs. 'search-contacts'). It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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