intercom_search_contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - nothing about partial-match semantics, multiple-match behavior, pagination, or result limits - but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and the matching key front-loaded; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With annotations covering safety and the schema covering both parameters, the definition is functional, and no output schema means return values need not be described. However, for a search endpoint nothing tells the agent whether matches are fuzzy, whether all matches are returned, or how access failures surface, which leaves real gaps for a two-parameter authenticated search.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema (query = "Email (or partial email) to match", access_token = "Intercom access token"). The description's "by email" merely restates the query parameter rather than adding matching rules or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search Intercom contacts") plus the matching dimension ("by email"), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not differentiate from the closely related sibling intercom_list_contacts, which is the one distinction an agent actually needs.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for looking up a contact when you have an email or partial email. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over intercom_list_contacts or hubspot_search_contacts, and no note about what to do when the query yields nothing or matches multiple contacts.

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