search_contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capability ('com filtros') but doesn't describe what the search returns (full contact objects? limited fields?), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, whether there's pagination beyond the 'limit' parameter, or how the search interacts with the ActiveCampaign platform. The agent lacks sufficient context to understand the tool's full behavior.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema: 'limit' with default value and 'query' with search scope examples. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying filtering capability without specifying how filters work beyond the 'query' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Busca contatos no ActiveCampaign com filtros' (Search contacts in ActiveCampaign with filters). It specifies the verb ('busca' - search), resource ('contatos' - contacts), and platform ('ActiveCampaign'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_contact_by_email' or 'get_contact_by_id' which appear to be more specific lookup methods.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this search tool is preferable over the more targeted 'get_contact_by_email' or 'get_contact_by_id' tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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