crm_search_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'search' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm safety, permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens on errors. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool, though it could benefit from being more specific while maintaining brevity.

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 complexity (5 parameters with nested structures, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what properties can be filtered/sorted, how pagination works, what 'contact-specific' means, or what the tool returns. For a search tool with rich filtering capabilities, this leaves too much undefined.

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 0%, meaning all 5 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only vaguely mentions 'contact-specific filters' which hints at the filterGroups parameter but doesn't explain any parameters' purposes, formats, or relationships. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Search contacts with contact-specific filters' states the verb (search) and resource (contacts) but is vague about what 'contact-specific filters' means. It doesn't specify what distinguishes this from generic search tools or what makes filters 'contact-specific.' Compared to siblings like crm_search_companies and crm_search_leads, it's clear this searches contacts but lacks differentiation in filtering approach or scope.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to similar tools like crm_search_objects or crm_get_contact. With many sibling tools available, the agent receives no help in selecting this specific search tool over others.

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