contacts_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. But the description adds no behavioral context beyond its scope statement: it does not mention match semantics, output format, result limits, or any caveats about open-world results. With no additional behavioral disclosure, this is a gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and query semantics. Extremely concise and well-structured.

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 search tool with one required parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks guidance on output shape, when to use vs contacts_list, and the meaning of openWorldHint. These gaps make it adequate but not fully 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%, so the description must compensate. It does so for the required 'query' parameter by specifying it can match name, email, or company. The 'max' parameter is left to the schema's default/min/max, which are self-explanatory. This meaningful addition for the central parameter earns a 4.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('your own contacts') with the searchable fields ('name, email or company'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling contacts_list, relying on the word 'search' to imply the distinction.

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 usage: use this tool when you need to find a contact by name, email, or company. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over contacts_list, no exclusions, and no mention of using it for listing all contacts. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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