boond_contacts_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not state that it returns a list of contacts, how pagination works, or any side effects. There is no information about sorting, default behavior, or what 'other criteria' might be supported. The description adds little beyond the tool name itself.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb 'search' and the resource 'contacts', followed by the key criteria. This is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not confirm whether the tool returns a list or a single result, does not explain pagination (despite page/limit parameters), and does not give examples of valid query values. An agent would lack sufficient information to construct a correct search query beyond a basic name or email string. The description falls short of being complete even for a simple 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by indicating that the query parameter can contain a name or email, but it does not explain the format or other accepted criteria. The page and limit parameters are self-explanatory from their schema definitions and defaults, but their semantics are not elaborated. The description partially clarifies the query parameter's purpose but leaves ambiguity around 'other criteria'.

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 it searches contacts by name, email, or other criteria, identifying both the verb (search) and the resource (contacts). It distinguishes from the contacts_get tool by implying a search over a list rather than fetching a single record, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from other search tools for different resources beyond the resource name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that boond_contacts_get should be used when a specific contact ID is known, nor does it clarify the distinction between search and other contact operations. The description offers no exclusions or alternative routing.

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