search_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the accent-insensitive behavior and the fields searched, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it clarify how limit/addressbook constrain the search or what the response looks like.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the search criteria and a behavioral nuance. No redundant words and easy to scan.

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 the description is mostly sufficient, but it leaves gaps: it does not clarify whether addressbook filters to a single book or searches all books, what the limit applies to, or what the return data includes (there is no output schema). With no annotations, these gaps make it only minimally complete.

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 documents query as a name fragment or phone digits, and the description expands this to name, organisation, note, email, and phone digits, plus accent-insensitivity. This adds meaningful detail beyond the schema for the main parameter. The limit and addressbook parameters are not enriched beyond their schema descriptions, so it is not fully complete.

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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (address book), and enumerates the searchable fields: name, organisation, note, email, or phone digits. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_collections (listing) and create_contact (writing), so an agent can tell it apart.

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 provides a clear context for when to search contacts, but it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and does not mention alternatives such as list_collections for browsing collections. The intended use is implied by the verb and resource, not stated directly.

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