Search Contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns full data for each result, warns about slow performance of broad free-text searches, and explains the behavior of count_only=true (auto-paginates, returns only count/breakdowns). This goes beyond basic schema info, though it omits potential rate limits and auth requirements.

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 well-structured: a clear opening purpose, a prominent note about full data returns, a bulleted list of supported features, and an IMPORTANT callout for geographic searches. Every section earns its place without redundancy, and the use of bullets enhances scannability.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a comprehensive overview of the tool's capabilities: full data return, filtering/sorting options, advanced filters, count_only behavior, and a pointer to get_custom_fields for custom field discovery. For a 9-parameter search tool, this covers all key aspects the agent needs to know.

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 78%, and the description adds meaningful parameter context: it explains that search_terms scans all fields (and can be slow), recommends advanced_filters for geographic fields, and advises keeping max_results low for name searches. It also clarifies count_only behavior, which complements the schema's description. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Search for contacts and companies with filters and sorting', a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It further clarifies usage for finding contacts by name, email, or other criteria, and explicitly distinguishes this from get_contact by stating 'no need to call get_contact afterward'.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('Use this tool to find contacts by name, email, or other criteria') and provides operational guidance such as using advanced_filters for geographic searches and count_only=true for large datasets. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_contacts_by_ids for ID-based lookups, so it stops short of 5.

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