Search contacts

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness, but the description goes well beyond them. It discloses default pagination (25 per page), relevance ranking, the inability to combine search with $filter/$orderby, and exact matching semantics. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone would not convey.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, output shape, defaults, ranking rationale, alternative tool, and limitations. The key differentiators are front-loaded before the more detailed caveats. No filler or repetition.

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 search tool with three parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential behavior needed to invoke it correctly: scope, ranking, pagination defaults, return shape, and matching limitations. The schema fills in the remaining parameter details. Nothing critical 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 100%, so the baseline is a 3. The top-level description adds meaningful query semantics beyond the schema by explaining whole-word/prefix matching, ranking behavior, and unsupported conditions. It does not add extra detail about top/skip, but the schema already documents those fully.

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 a specific action ('full-text search') and resource ('default Contacts folder'), and also specifies the output format ('same compact rows as contacts_list'). It differentiates itself from contacts_list by explicitly saying that $filter and $orderby are not available here. An agent can immediately tell this apart from sibling tools.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: relevance-ranked full-text search, and it explicitly names the alternative for filtered/sorted results ('use contacts_list'). It also states hard limitations up front—no date ranges, mid-term wildcards, or 'not equal' conditions—helping an agent avoid calling this tool for queries it cannot satisfy.

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