thunderbird_search_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral detail — that it searches both the personal address book and the collected addresses — but says nothing about matching behavior, result caps, pagination, or any auth/connection requirement, and the text cuts off before the query semantics are explained.

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?

What exists is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scoping detail comes first. However, it is truncated mid-sentence, so the definition is structurally incomplete rather than genuinely concise.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an empty parameter schema, the description had to carry everything and does not: no return shape, no result limit, no connection prerequisite, and the query portion is cut off. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool from the definition alone.

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?

Zero parameters are declared, which normally yields a baseline of 4, but the description references a `q` query term (truncated) that does not appear anywhere in the schema. That mismatch leaves the agent unsure what input this tool actually accepts, so the description adds ambiguity rather than compensating.

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 (searches) and resource (Thunderbird's address books on this computer), scoping it to personal and collected address books, which distinguishes it from thunderbird_search_emails. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other contact-search siblings (outlook_contacts_search, m365_search_contacts, whatsapp_search_contacts), and the sentence is truncated mid-clause.

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 Thunderbird-specific framing implies when to use it over the other contact searchers, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as connecting an account first (thunderbird_connect).

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