Find contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the substring-match behavior and the customer scoping option, but says nothing about pagination/scan breadth (up to 500 records by default) or ordering of results, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core matching behavior comes first and the motivating use case second. Every clause earns its 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?

With no output schema, the description partly compensates by indicating the useful return artifact (EndUserID), which is more than most search tools offer. It leaves the pagination/limit interaction (limit vs maxPages) to the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage, but a note on result shape would make it 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% – every parameter (limit, query, maxPages, customerId, includeArchived) is documented in the schema itself. The description restates the query semantics and customer restriction but adds no format, syntax, or default information beyond the schema, so the 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 (search) and resource (contacts) plus the matching semantics (name or email contains the query) and an optional scope (one customer). This clearly separates it from list_contacts (enumerate all) and get_contact (fetch one) without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use: 'Use it to get an EndUserID', which tells the agent the downstream goal this tool serves. It does not name an alternative or state when NOT to use it (e.g. when listing all contacts is preferable), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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