Search Aircall contacts

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal extra context by specifying 'shared' contacts, which is a useful scoping detail. No contradictions with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word adds value, directly stating the tool's purpose and primary search fields.

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 search tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key searchable fields. Pagination and sorting parameters are self-explanatory from the schema, so no additional context is needed.

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 covers 63% of parameters with descriptions, but the two key search parameters (email and phone_number) lack descriptions. The description explicitly names these as search criteria, directly compensating for the gap. Other parameters like page and per_page are adequately described in the schema.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('shared Aircall contacts'), and the specific search criteria ('by phone number or email address'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aircall_list_contacts (which lists all) and aircall_get_contact (which retrieves a single 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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (when finding a contact by phone or email), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The differentiation from list/get tools is implied through the phrase 'by phone number or email address.'

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