crm_search_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'search' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, returns partial data, or has performance characteristics. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic operation name.

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 extremely concise at 5 words with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and complex filtering capabilities.

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 search tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the complex filtering system, pagination (limit/after), sorting, or what properties can be returned. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based on the description alone.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'contact-specific filters' which hints at the filterGroups parameter, but doesn't explain the 5 parameters (filterGroups, properties, limit, after, sorts) or their semantics. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of 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 states the verb ('search') and resource ('contacts'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'contact-specific filters' means and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like crm_search_companies or crm_search_leads, which have identical descriptions except for 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling search tools for other resources (companies, leads, objects) or clarify if this is the primary contact search method versus other contact-related tools like crm_get_contact or crm_list_objects.

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