ktalk_search_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it never auto-selects, it does not apply the key anywhere, it treats query as free-text (unverified), and it limits to session mode. These are critical constraints an agent needs to avoid misinvocation.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then key behavioral notes, followed by a clear args list. No superfluous sentences; every line adds operational value.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but flagged), the description doesn't need to describe return formats. It covers purpose, usage context, behavior, parameter details, and edge cases (match counts). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 schema has zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries all parameter meaning. It explains that query is a free-text name/surname (not a login) and enumerates the valid format values ('raw' JSON or 'markdown'). This fully compensates for the bare 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 names a specific verb (search/resolve), a specific resource (contacts directory), and the exact outcome (resolving a numeric attendee key). It references ADR-010 for context and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by its focus on contact lookup rather than participants, recordings, or calendars.

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?

Explicitly states the operational context ('session mode only, no confirmed API-key profile') and spells out the matching behavior (0 matches = refusal, 1 match shown explicitly, >1 listed without ranking). It also warns that the resolved key must still be passed manually to meeting creation, so an agent knows exactly how to use the result.

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