Contacts Search

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds context that matching spans name, organization, emails, and phone digits, but it does not disclose behavior such as partial matching, result limits, ordering, or empty-result handling.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and scope are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 read-only search tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description provides the essential behavior. The only notable gap is explicit usage differentiation from sibling tools, which is a usage-guideline concern rather than a completeness issue for invoking the tool correctly.

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 both query and limit are already documented. The description's mention of searched fields mirrors the query parameter description and adds no substantive new meaning 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('contacts'), and lists searchable fields: name, organization, email, phone. It clearly communicates a match-based lookup rather than direct retrieval, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like contacts_list or contacts_get.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need to locate contacts by partial information such as name, organization, email, or phone. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over contacts_list or contacts_get, and no exclusions are stated.

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