search-contacts

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

Discloses the search scope and basic input types, but without annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not mention pagination behavior, matching semantics, auth requirements, or that the schema also allows phone searches.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant qualifiers, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool.

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?

Describes the core action and scope adequately for a simple search, but lacks mention of phone as a search criterion and pagination controls. There is no output schema or annotations to cover these gaps.

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 only 33% (only 'search' has a description), and the description adds little: it omits the phone criterion already listed in the schema and provides no guidance for 'page' or 'limit'. The description needed to compensate for low schema coverage but does not.

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?

Clearly states a specific action ('Search') on a specific resource ('contacts') with explicit scope ('across all cases') and criteria ('by name or email'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list-case-contacts, which are likely specific to a single case.

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?

'Across all cases' implies this is the global contact-search tool rather than a case-scoped listing, giving some context for selection. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or point to an alternative.

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