Search Contacts

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds scope context (searches personal contacts by name/email/phone) but leaves matching semantics and the ambiguous 'other fields' undefined. No contradiction with 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?

A single 10-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero wasted words. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema and annotations fully cover parameters and safety, and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, the description misses its key disambiguation role: given the large sibling set with several contact-related tools, an agent gets no help deciding between this and list_contacts or search_directory_people.

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 three parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The tool description mostly echoes the query parameter description and adds only the vague 'other fields' extension.

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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (contacts) with explicit searchable fields (name, email, phone number). It is clear and distinguishes itself from list_contacts and get_contact, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_directory_people.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With close siblings like list_contacts, get_contact, and search_directory_people, an agent receives no help selecting the appropriate tool.

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