Contacts: Search Contacts

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: a 15-per-page pagination limit, the required User API key header, and the fact that Persian/Arabic-Indic digits and non-Latin text are accepted unchanged. These are genuine operational details not derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then endpoint, auth, and the digit-encoding note. There is mild redundancy (Persian is mentioned twice) but every line carries information and the structure is easy to scan.

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 read-only search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies auth, pagination, and encoding behavior, which is enough for correct invocation. Absent is guidance on result shape or how the query matches across fields.

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 q, page, sort, and account_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the cross-cutting note about Persian/Arabic-Indic digit handling, which does not elaborate on individual parameter syntax or constraints.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('resolved contacts') plus the searchable fields (name, identifier, email, phone number), which meaningfully distinguishes it from list/filter siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast with gapify_filter_contacts or gapify_list_contacts, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 never states when to use this search endpoint versus gapify_filter_contacts, gapify_list_contacts, or gapify_get_contact. Usage is only implied by the fact that a query term is accepted, so an agent gets no routing guidance.

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