find_contacts

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'search' without disclosing pagination (page, limit parameters), default behavior (returns all contacts up to limit?), or sorting. Minimal transparency for a search tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource. No wasted words. Could include more detail (e.g., optional filters) without becoming verbose, but current conciseness is appropriate.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, description lacks context on pagination, filtering behavior (e.g., does it support partial matching?), and what happens with no parameters. Incomplete for a search tool with multiple optional filters.

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 has 0% description coverage; 5 params, 0 required. Description mentions 'name or email', providing some context for first_name, last_name, and email. However, it ignores page and limit parameters, which could affect search results. Adds value but leaves gaps.

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 the tool searches contacts by name or email. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_contact' (which likely retrieves by ID) and other 'find_*' tools. However, it could be more precise by mentioning first_name and last_name separately.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where other tools (e.g., get_contact) would be more appropriate. Implies usage but lacks explicit context.

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