ghl_search_contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, how pagination works, whether results are sorted by default, or any rate limits. The description only states the tool's purpose without revealing behavioral characteristics beyond the name 'search' implying read-only.

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, tightly written sentence. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose ('Advanced contact search') and provides relevant filter examples without padding. Every word earns its place, and the 'etc.' is acceptable shorthand for additional filter options.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention what the response looks like, whether results are paginated, or how filters interact with the query parameter. The 'Advanced' label signals complexity, but the description does not provide enough context to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate. It adds value by giving concrete examples of filter fields (tags, pipeline stage, source) that clarify the 'filters' parameter. However, it does not explain pagination parameters like page/pageLimit or sorting parameters, leaving those semantics to the schema and parameter names.

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 identifies the tool as an advanced contact search with filters for specific fields like tags, pipeline stage, and source. This distinguishes it from the simpler ghl_get_contacts sibling, which likely lists contacts without advanced filtering. The verb 'search' plus resource 'contacts' and the filter qualifier make the purpose unmistakable.

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 for advanced filtering scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like ghl_get_contacts or ghl_get_contact. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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