Search contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are contact_id values usable as filters elsewhere, which is useful context, but it says nothing about pagination defaults, hidden contacts, or result volume.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the resource and searchable fields come first and the downstream use of contact_id follows. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With nine optional parameters and an output schema present, the definition is largely complete: return values need not be explained, and the contact_id note is a bonus. The one gap is the absence of any statement about default behavior when no filters are supplied.

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 89%, so the schema already explains nearly every parameter, including the IČO and DIČ mapping. The description's mention of name/IČO/DIČ mostly restates that, adding no syntax or precedence guidance (e.g. name vs query).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search customers and suppliers') plus the searchable identifiers (name, IČO, DIČ), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_contact, which retrieves a single contact, leaving that routing to inference.

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 sentence 'Returns contact_id values for the invoice and receivable filters' implies a clear usage context: call this to obtain IDs needed by invoice/receivable tools. However, it never states when not to use it, what happens with zero parameters, or how it relates to get_contact for single-record lookups.

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