Contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the name-filtering behavior, which is already captured in the schema, and does not disclose additional runtime behavior such as pagination or timeout semantics beyond the schema; there is no contradiction.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the invocation hint ('Pass name_filter...') comes immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema and 100% schema parameter coverage, this description is complete enough. Nothing material is missing that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents both name_filter (substring search, empty returns everything) and limit (defaults to 50, max 500). The description's 'name_filter with a substring' line adds no meaning beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Find contacts (people who can be notified) by name'), which clearly identifies what the tool returns and clarifies that it deals with individual notification contacts. It is clear and distinguishable from sibling list_* tools at a high level, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or exclusion.

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 the primary use case: look up notification contacts by name using name_filter. It offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools such as list_contactgroups, so an agent is left to infer selection from the tool name and context.

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