pylon_search_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool is for searching, it doesn't describe key behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), or error handling. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides context. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines.

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 moderate complexity (search function with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, result format, or error handling. For a search tool with no output schema, more context on what to expect would be beneficial.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds some semantic context by listing searchable fields (name, email, company, or other details), which aligns with but doesn't significantly expand upon the schema's examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search for customer contacts in Pylon by name, email, company, or other details.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (customer contacts), and scope (searchable fields). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pylon_get_contacts' or 'pylon_search_users', which might offer similar 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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use this to quickly find a specific customer when you need to view their information or create an issue for them.' This gives practical scenarios (viewing info, creating issues) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'pylon_get_contacts' for unfiltered lists.

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