resolve_contact

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable context by detailing the multi-level resolution process (exact match, digits, fuzzy, macOS AddressBook), which helps the agent understand how matching works beyond basic safety.

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 front-loads the core purpose and adds necessary detail about the resolution process. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the fuzzy matching behavior well, but could benefit from mentioning the expected return format or match confidence levels to fully guide the agent.

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%, with the parameter 'query' fully documented. The description adds marginal value by listing the types of queries (name, phone, email) but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states the specific action ('fuzzy-match'), the resource ('contact record'), and the input types ('name, phone number, or email'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_contact' by specifying the fuzzy matching approach rather than direct retrieval.

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 usage when you have partial or inexact contact information, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_contact' or 'list_contacts'. No exclusions or specific contexts are provided.

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