apple_contacts_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. However, 'Returns summaries, not all contact details' is genuinely valuable behavioral context given there is no output schema, and it warns the agent that full details require another call.

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 tight sentences with no waste, and the safety/scope note is front-loaded ahead of the return-shape caveat.

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 rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and return shape adequately. The remaining gap is pagination behavior for limit/offset, which the description does not address.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains only 'query' (substring match against name/organization); limit and offset are left completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb ('find'), resource ('contacts'), and the matching semantics ('by name or organization substring'). This clearly distinguishes it from apple_contacts_get (fetch one contact) and apple_contacts_list_groups.

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?

Usage is implied by the substring-matching search phrasing, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over apple_contacts_get or when not to use it. No prerequisites or alternatives are named.

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