search_contacts

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the query format, operators, and an example, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. As a search operation, read-only is implied but not stated.

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 structured with an Args section and a clear breakdown of each parameter. The example is valuable and not wasted. It is somewhat lengthy but every line serves a purpose, earning a high score without perfect brevity.

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 tool with a complex query syntax and no annotations, the description covers all parameters and provides essential operational details. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. It could mention error cases or performance implications, but it is largely complete.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by detailing query_json with format, operators, and a concrete example, plus clarifying per_page and page with default values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema, making the parameters self-documenting.

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 function: 'Search contacts with an advanced NSE query.' The verb is specific ('search'), the resource is defined ('contacts'), and the 'advanced NSE query' distinguishes it from simpler tools like list_contacts or get_contacts_by_ids.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need advanced search), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use list_contacts for simple listing' or 'use get_contact for a single contact.' The usage context is clear from the parameters but not fully elaborated.

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