Pilot MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it mentions searchable fields, it fails to disclose critical behavioral aspects such as return format, pagination, case sensitivity, or how the search is performed given the lack of input parameters. It does not clarify if the tool opens a UI or uses implicit context.

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 only 6 words. While front-loaded and efficient in isolation, the brevity becomes a liability given the mismatch between the described search criteria and the empty parameter schema, leaving insufficient room to explain the tool's actual interface.

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?

Without an output schema, annotations, or described parameters, the description is incomplete. The mention of search criteria that are not actual parameters creates a critical gap between described functionality and technical capability, and no information is provided about return values or error states.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters and 100% coverage of the empty set, establishing a baseline of 4 per scoring rules. The description mentions 'name, email, or phone' which attempts to add semantic meaning, though these fields are absent from the actual 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?

The description clearly states the action (search) and resource (contacts) and specifies searchable fields (name, email, phone). However, it fails to differentiate from siblings like get_contact or list_contacts, and critically, the mentioned search fields do not exist as parameters in the empty input schema, creating confusion about how to invoke the tool.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_contact (likely for specific ID lookup) or list_contacts (likely for unfiltered listing). The description does not clarify prerequisites or search behavior (e.g., partial vs exact matching).

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