연락처 최소 필드 검색

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output is minimal and masking occurs, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, result ordering defaults, or what happens with invalid queries/missing matches.

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?

Single concise sentence that packs useful information about scope, masking, and exclusions. No wasted words, though it could arguably be a bit longer to cover parameter semantics.

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?

A 6-parameter search tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is too thin: it doesn't explain query semantics, pagination, filtering, ordering behavior, or the output shape. For a complex search tool, significantly more behavioral documentation is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 6 parameters. It fails to do so — none of the parameters (query, count, cursor, userId, orderBy, queryFilters) are explained beyond the schema. The description adds no meaning about the query format, filter syntax, or cursor 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?

Description clearly states the tool searches contacts and returns only minimal fields with masked email/phone, excluding memo/address/custom properties. The verb+resource is clear and it distinguishes from directory tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 searching contacts when minimal/masked data suffices, and signals that richer fields (memo, address, custom attributes) are excluded. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like works_directory_users_list or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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