contacts_search_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, idempotency, or potential side effects. The behavioral traits are minimal and vague.

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 very concise with a single sentence, no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness (e.g., mentioning accountId). It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain return values or result format, which it does not. It also does not mention pagination, result limits, or scope (per account). The context is adequate but not fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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%. The description adds meaning to 'query' as 'name or query term', but does not explain 'accountId' at all. While it partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions, it fails to document the required accountId parameter.

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 specifies the verb 'find' and resource 'contact entries', with the method 'by name or query term'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like contacts_create_contact and contacts_delete_contact, though it could be more precise by mentioning the required accountId.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as listing all contacts or other search methods. The description implies usage for searching but lacks context about preconditions or when not to use it.

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