search_contacts

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the required `contacts:read` permission, the fields searched (email and phone), and the substring-match behavior. It says nothing about result ordering, whether the search is case-sensitive, or rate limits, which leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 matching behavior and permission requirement are front-loaded in the first two lines with no filler. The trailing raw endpoint (`GET /api/v1/contacts/search`) and `Tags: Search` are developer-doc residue that does not help an agent decide or invoke, but they are brief.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of shape information, and it never says what a result contains or how results are ordered or capped beyond `limit`. For a simple two-parameter search it is close to sufficient, but the return side is left entirely implicit.

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%, so the schema already documents both `query` (min 3 chars) and `limit` (1-15, default 15). The description adds only the semantics of what the query is matched against, which is genuine but modest value; nothing is added about the limit or its clamping behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search Contacts") and adds the matching rule: contacts whose email or phone number contains the query. That is more precise than the name alone. It does not distinguish the tool from the sibling get_contacts, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 substring-matching rule implies when this tool is appropriate (partial email/phone lookups rather than full listing), and the permission requirement signals a precondition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. get_contacts guidance and no note on how to handle multiple results or pagination.

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