search_contacts

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 discloses the save_to_file behavior (writing results to a temp file) and mentions the output_format options, which add value beyond the schema. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error handling, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a moderate disclosure, not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, a concise argument list with each parameter on its own line, and a brief return note. No fluff or redundant wording. It is easy to scan and information-dense.

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?

Given the five parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all parameter semantics and return format adequately. It does not discuss edge cases, sorting order, or authentication, but for a search tool this may be acceptable. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return structure in detail. The only notable omission is a clear indication that the tool is read-only.

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 fully explain each parameter. It does so effectively: query (searches first and last name), organization_id (limits by org), limit (default 10, max 100), output_format (lists allowed values), and save_to_file (explains purpose for jq). This is a complete, meaningful explanation that compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 for contacts by name') and the resource (contacts). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_contacts or get_contact, but the inclusion of a query parameter and search semantics makes the purpose reasonably clear. The lack of sibling differentiation prevents a 5.

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 description provides parameter details but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that search_contacts is for query-based searches while list_contacts is for broad listing, nor does it note any exclusions or prerequisites. Agents must infer usage from the name and parameter structure.

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