addressbook_query

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

With no annotations, the description does the work: it discloses that searching without addressbook_url automatically spans all addressbooks, and the sibling routing implies this is the filtered-read counterpart to list_contacts. It doesn't spell out read-only status or result limits, but the query verb and 'search/filter' framing make the operation clear.

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 front-loaded sentence plus target examples and routing. No filler; the '⭐ PREFERRED' flag, use-cases, alternative tool, and default addressbook behavior all earn their 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 filtered-read tool with fully documented parameters and a clear routing rule, this is nearly complete. It lacks explicit return-format details, but there is no output schema and the limit parameter already mentions alphabetical order and the total-match count, so the main remaining gap is minor.

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%, so every parameter already has a meaningful description and the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces the filter requirement and adds the 'omit addressbook_url to search ALL' guidance, but that guidance largely mirrors the schema's own parameter description rather than adding new per-parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Search and filter contacts efficiently (name, email, organization)' — a specific verb and resource with the exact filter dimensions. It also names the sibling it replaces ('Use instead of list_contacts when ANY filter is specified'), so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

It gives concrete query phrasings ('find contacts with...', 'search for email...', 'contacts at company...') and explicitly routes to list_contacts when no filter is needed. It also instructs when to provide or omit addressbook_url, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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