alga_contacts_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to re-state safety; instead it adds genuinely new behavior: results are capped by limit and the call is not paginated, and inactive records are excluded by default unless opted in. It leaves matching semantics (substring vs exact) and the shape of returned matches unstated, which keeps it below a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cap, followed by the optional scoping modifiers. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 five-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sizing, scoping, and the inactive-record default. The remaining gap is what a match actually returns (which fields, how many, ordering) and how matching is performed, both of which an agent might want before invoking it.

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 only 20%, so the description has to compensate, and it largely does: it explains that query matches across name/email/other columns, that limit bounds the match count, and that client_id scopes to one client while include_inactive broadens the result set. The one weak spot is `fields`, which is only obliquely covered by "other columns" – the important caveat that it selects match columns, not returned columns, lives in the schema rather than the description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Search contacts") plus the matching fields ("by name, email or other columns") and the result cap. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like alga_contacts_list or alga_contacts_get, so an agent must infer that this is the query-matching variant rather than an enumeration/getter.

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?

"Optionally limit to one client or include inactive contacts" and "(not paginated)" imply the intended context (bounded, targeted lookup rather than full enumeration), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative for listing all contacts or fetching a single contact.

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