autotask_search_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pagination defaults (25 results per page) and the page parameter, which is useful. However, it omits critical details such as search scope (e.g., partial vs. exact matches), error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a search tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences are relevant: the first states the tool's function, and the second provides pagination details. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from behavioral notes).

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic pagination but misses key contextual elements like search behavior (e.g., fuzzy matching), result format, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no structured output, more guidance is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying pagination usage. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Search for contacts in Autotask.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('contacts in Autotask'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling search tools like autotask_search_companies or autotask_search_tickets, which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pagination details but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available, this lack of context leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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