Search Name

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context — and it does add the return cardinality (zero or more) and ranking behavior, which matters given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about permissions requirements, ranking criteria, or the cap behavior of maxResults.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core purpose stated first and the return shape second. Nothing redundant.

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?

With no output schema the description correctly covers return cardinality, but it omits parameter behavior (maxResults default/cap) and permission prerequisites, leaving an agent with gaps for a two-parameter tool.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never explains that nameQuery is a single string matched against name/nickname/organization, nor what maxResults does or what its default is despite the 1-25 bound in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Apple Contacts), plus the matching fields (name, nickname, organization). That scope implicitly separates it from the phone/email lookup siblings, but no sibling is named so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as contacts_permissions, and no routing advice toward the lookup_phone/lookup_email/get_contact alternatives. The agent must infer that name-based lookup is the only reason to pick this tool.

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