Search contacts and global directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds meaningful behavior by specifying that the query matches name, username, and indexed text, which clarifies the search scope beyond a generic 'search'.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose and matching behavior without waste. Every word adds value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but there is no output schema and the description does not indicate what the search returns (e.g., contact list format). It also lacks usage differentiation from siblings, and the accountId parameter is left ambiguous, leaving some gaps in context.

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 description explains the semantics of the 'query' parameter (matches name, username, indexed text), but it does not clarify 'limit' or 'accountId'. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves two parameters under-explained.

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 clear verb ('Search') and resource ('users/chats/channels'), and adds matching criteria ('name, username, and indexed text'). It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'search_global', which may serve a similar purpose, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_dialogs, search_messages, or search_global. The description implies a broad search but does not provide exclusions or preferred use cases.

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