Search Contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it returns compact summaries for large result sets and clarifies which parameters do not count as independent real filters. This is valuable contextual information, though it does not detail pagination or exact return format, which the output schema likely covers.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful information. It avoids redundancy with the schema and annotations, making it compact and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (22 parameters), existing output schema, and annotations, the description provides essential usage constraints and behavioral notes (compact summaries, filter requirement). It does not mention how multiple filters combine or the behavior of contact_slug ignoring other filters, but those are documented in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining owner_id's semantics (scope to a user) and cross-referencing list_users, plus giving a clear rule about which parameters cannot serve as the sole filter. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource construction ('Search Recruit CRM contacts') and clearly indicates the tool's scope (filters, compact summaries for large result sets). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_contacts and get_contact_details by focusing on filtered search with a compact summary output.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (searching with filters) and practical guidance: owner_id scoping, resolving user IDs via list_users, and the requirement for at least one real filter. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like list_contacts for unfiltered listing, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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