Find contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the function and output, but omits any mention of side effects (none expected), ordering, pagination, or that it is a read-only operation. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the action and criteria, the second lists the return fields. Efficiently communicates essential information.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lists inputs and outputs but lacks details on limit behavior, result ordering, or potential edge cases like no results. A fuller description would improve completeness.

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?

The schema describes the query parameter with detail (matches display_name, first_name, last_name, or primary email), covering 50% of parameters. The description echoes 'by name or primary email' but does not add information about the limit parameter. Overall, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches CiviCRM contacts by name or primary email and lists the returned fields (id, display name, type, primary email, phone). This distinguishes it from siblings like civicrm_get_contact (single contact by ID) and civicrm_list_entities (generic list).

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 implies when to use (search by name/email) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as civicrm_get_contact or civicrm_run_saved_search, nor does it mention when not to use this tool. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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