Search GHL Contacts

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

Annotations already cover readability and safety. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: paginated results, default location behavior, and advanced filtering capabilities (tags, custom fields). This provides useful context for invocation.

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 compact and well-organized, with a clear opening sentence followed by an Args list and a Returns line. Every line provides relevant information without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers the core search functionality and return type, but omits the pagination cursor parameters (startAfter, startAfterId) from the Args list, though they appear in the schema. The incorrect filter type also creates a completeness gap. For a tool with no output schema, it is 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description misrepresents the 'filters' parameter as an object while the schema defines it as an array of filter objects. This contradiction can mislead an agent into constructing an invalid argument. The examples of filter capabilities are helpful but the type error overrides that benefit.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair ('Search contacts in GoHighLevel') and clearly indicates the tool's scope (query, tags, filters, custom fields). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_get_contact by being the search-oriented counterpart.

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 for finding contacts via various criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ghl_get_contact for fetching by ID). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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