Search My Contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'search personal contacts by name prefix' without disclosing read-only nature, case sensitivity, pagination, or error behavior. The Chinese intent examples do not add behavioral transparency.

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 concise with two sentences, the first being the core functionality. The second sentence lists Chinese intents, which is extra but not harmful; however, it could be seen as slightly unnecessary. Overall, it is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a simple search tool with fully described schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not describe return values (no output schema) or usage context, nor does it mention alternatives. However, the purpose is straightforward, so it is not severely incomplete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats 'name prefix' but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for query and top parameters.

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 searches personal contacts by name prefix, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like contacts_list or contacts_get by detailing the search scope (personal contacts) and method (prefix).

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 does not mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as contacts_list or contacts_get. It gives no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations. The only hint is the prefix search nature, which implies use for partial name lookups, but this is not stated.

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