contacts_search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It identifies searchable fields but omits critical behavioral details: return format, partial vs exact matching semantics, case sensitivity, rate limits, or auth requirements. The term 'Search' implies read-only, but this isn't explicitly confirmed.

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?

Single sentence of nine words with no filler. Information is front-loaded and immediately actionable. Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a simple search tool with complete schema coverage, but minimal given the lack of output schema and annotations. Missing guidance on what the tool returns (contact objects, IDs, etc.) and how to interpret results. Meets minimum viability but leaves operational gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mirrors the schema's explanation of what the 'query' parameter accepts (name, email, phone) without adding syntax details, format examples, or clarifying the 'account' parameter's expected values 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?

Clearly states the action (search) and resource (Google Contacts) with specific fields (name, email, phone number). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'contacts_list' by emphasizing search criteria, though it doesn't explicitly contrast the two tools.

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?

Implies usage context through the search fields mentioned (name, email, phone), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'contacts_list' or other contact-related operations. No prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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