Search Agent Contact mentions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds some useful behavioral context with "without reading messages," but it does not explain query behavior, result contents, or how this search differs from opening contacts directly.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key verb appears immediately. The phrasing is somewhat cryptic, but it is structurally 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?

For a one-parameter search tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description should clarify the query semantics and expected return shape. It only hints at behavior ("without reading messages") and leaves the central search semantics unexplained.

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 tool has one required parameter, "query," but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not specify what the query matches against (contact names, identifiers, opening actions, etc.) or what format it expects, so the schema gap is not compensated.

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 has a verb ("Find") and a resource ("Agent Contact opening actions"), so it is more than a tautology. However, "opening actions for the composer" is undefined and the description does not distinguish this from siblings like open_agent_contacts or open_agent_contacts_home.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of open_agent_contacts, open_agent_contacts_home, or other contact/message tools. Usage is only implied by the phrase "for the composer."

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