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 discloses that it returns matching contacts with specific fields, which is useful. However, it does not describe potential side effects (none expected), pagination behavior, or any limitations beyond the schema. This is a minimal viable disclosure but lacks depth.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return value summary. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 has no output schema, so the description correctly and sufficiently explains the return fields. It covers the main parameters (query, limit, filters are in schema) and the core functionality. Minor gaps include no mention of default ordering or behavior on no matches, but these are not critical for a straightforward search tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides—query, limit, status, and folder_id are already clearly described. The description's mention of searchable fields (name, email, company) mirrors the schema text.

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 the OutreachPilot CRM for contacts by name, email, or company, and specifies the return fields (status, email, LinkedIn URL, creation date). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_contacts or get_contact.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you need to search contacts by a query. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to use this tool. No explicit 'use list_contacts instead' guidance, but the search intent is obvious.

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