apollo_search_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states it accepts arbitrary params and searches CRM contacts, but omits details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimal.

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?

Two succinct sentences that front-load the purpose and list example parameters. No unnecessary words 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the input parameters and scope. It could mention pagination limits or the 'extra' escape hatch more explicitly, but overall sufficient.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description lists example parameters (q_keywords, contact_label_ids, etc.) but does not elaborate on their semantics beyond what the schema provides. It adds some meaning but not comprehensive.

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 verb 'Search' and resource 'YOUR Apollo CRM contacts', and explicitly distinguishes it from the prospect database, which sets it apart from sibling tools like apollo_search_people.

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 indicates when to use (searching CRM contacts vs prospect database) and lists example parameters, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools.

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