search_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether matches are partial or exact, whether there are result limits or pagination, or whether empty results are returned for no match.

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 padding, appropriate for the tool's simplicity. It is efficient but extremely sparse, leaving no room for the routing or behavior context an agent might want.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is the minimum viable definition. The critical missing piece is the read-only/matching behavior, but the surface area is small enough that little else is required.

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 100% (only the single 'query' parameter, documented as 'Search term'), so the baseline is 3. The description does add a small amount of meaning by naming the fields the term is matched against (name/email/keyword), which goes slightly beyond 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (contacts) plus the fields matched (name/email/keyword), so an agent can distinguish it from search_leads, search_deals, and search_accounts by resource. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the generic sibling 'search', which is the one place ambiguity remains.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_contacts or view_contact, and no indication of prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is the keyword-lookup path versus enumeration.

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