contactSearch

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

With no annotations, the description compensates by disclosing several behavioral traits: default page size of 25 (API default is 20), page/offset index starting at 0, pagination via pages or offset, credit charges to inform users, and formatting rules (table, preview limit of 25). It does not mention rate limits or authentication but provides substantial context beyond basic functionality.

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 verbose, mixing functional purpose with behavioral instructions and multiple 'IMPORTANT' sections. It front-loads the purpose and key details but includes repetitive formatting guidelines. A more streamlined structure would improve conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (3 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers pagination, default settings, filter categories, workflow integration (step 2), and output formatting expectations. It lacks details about the response structure but since no output schema exists, it compensates with credit and provider information.

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% description coverage, so the description adds significant meaning by listing filter categories and providing semantic labels (e.g., 'technologies (tech stack used)', 'intentTopics (company intent signals)'). It explains the purpose of each filter group, though it does not detail every sub-field (like location object structure). Overall, it adds value 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?

The description clearly states it is for searching contacts using various filters in Lusha API, and explicitly identifies it as step 2 of the prospecting process. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like contactEnrich and contactFilters by explaining its role in the workflow.

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 explicit workflow guidance: instructs to use contactFilters first to get required filters, and advises asking the user whether to enrich results after returning search results. It doesn't explicitly compare to other search tools like companySearch, but the context of 'contact search' and step ordering is sufficient.

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