Find contacts

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

The description discloses that the API has no server-side search and that the tool pages through the contact list (50 per call) up to max_pages. It also warns that email matches only confirm address existence when include_contact_details is true. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first sentence, then adds behavioral caveats in the second. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is 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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: pagination, email visibility, and match semantics. The only missing piece is what the return format looks like, but the description's caveats are sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 75%, and the description adds important semantics for query (name or email fragment), max_pages (pages of 50), and include_contact_details (emails only returned with it). The max_results parameter lacks a description in the schema and is not explained in the description, which is a minor gap.

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 the tool searches contacts (signers and recipients) by name or email fragment, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_envelopes or list_users. The verb 'Search' plus the resource 'contacts' and the matching criteria make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains the pagination behavior and the max_pages parameter, and notes the include_contact_details requirement for emails. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for contact-related operations, but the context signals show siblings are mostly envelope/template/user tools, so the usage context is reasonably clear.

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