find_coffee_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read/search operation but says nothing about permissions, result shape, pagination, or ranking of 'available' contacts — a significant gap given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no padding; the purpose comes first and the use-case follows. The second sentence is mildly redundant with the first ('networking' / 'connect') but still earns its place as usage guidance.

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 four-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin: it never explains what a returned 'contact' includes or how results are ordered/limited. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 all four parameters (limit, search, industry, help_topics) are already documented in the schema. The description only loosely echoes the industry use case and adds no syntax or default detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Find people available for coffee chats / networking.' An agent can tell it is a people-discovery tool, distinct from siblings like send_coffee_chat_request or get_coffee_chat_requests, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Provides clear trigger context: use when the user wants to connect with professionals, find mentors, or network in a specific industry. It does not state exclusions or point to alternative tools for related needs (e.g., messaging an existing contact), so it falls short of a 5.

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