search_contacts

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

The description claims search by name, email, or phone number, but the input schema has zero properties, making it impossible to provide these inputs. This contradiction misleads the agent about the tool's actual behavior. No annotations are provided to clarify.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified given the missing parameters, making it less useful. It could be improved with additional context.

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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, yet the description implies search requires input. This incompleteness means the tool cannot be used as described. Context signals indicate zero parameters, so the description must explain how to perform the search, but it fails to do so.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%, but the description implies parameters for name, email, or phone number. This contradiction adds no value and misleads. The description should clarify how search queries are specified, but it doesn't.

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 it searches the Mac's Contacts app by name, email, or phone number, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_contact' or 'list_contacts', which have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_contacts' or 'm365_search_contacts'. There is no 'when not to use' or context for selection.

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