search_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only states it returns a structured object, without mentioning pagination, rate limits, or what happens with no matches. The mutation is not destructive, but details are minimal.

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 concise with a clear main sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose, though the Returns section could be more specific.

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 has only one parameter and no annotations, the description covers the essential information. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail. However, search behavior (e.g., exact vs. partial matching) is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by describing the 'query' parameter as 'Free-text search term.' This goes beyond the schema's type/title but does not explain nuances like case sensitivity or wildcards.

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 tool searches for contacts by name, email, or company. It specifies the resource (contacts) and action (search), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_contact (exact lookup) or list_deals (different resource).

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 (e.g., when to use get_contact for exact ID lookups). The description implies free-text search but does not explicitly state context or exclusions.

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