Search contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful trait ('including non-connected') but does not explain return format, pagination, or sorting behavior. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple read tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and behavior.

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?

This is a simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema. The description covers the core purpose, searchable fields, and the non-connected scope. With full schema coverage and low complexity, the description is adequately complete even though it doesn't discuss return format.

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 coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for both 'query' and 'account'. The description adds crucial meaning to 'query' by specifying it matches name, email, or phone, going beyond the schema's generic 'Search text.'

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 verb 'Search' with the resource 'contacts' and adds specific scope ('including non-connected') and searchable fields ('by name, email or phone'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_contacts_list and google_contacts_create.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need to find a contact by name, email, or phone, including non-connected contacts. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the search verb and field list imply when it's appropriate versus listing all contacts.

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