contacts_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that contacts can be searched by the given fields, without mentioning pagination, case sensitivity, partial matching, result ordering, or any side effects. This is minimal and offers little transparency beyond the core function.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently and earns a top score for conciseness.

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 search tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states what is searched and by what fields. However, it lacks details on search behavior (e.g., whether the query is a partial or exact match) and does not mention the optional max_results parameter. Given the absence of annotations and the presence of a sibling list tool, the description feels incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to the 'query' parameter by specifying the acceptable search fields (name, email, phone number). However, it does not address 'max_results' at all, leaving its behavior to be inferred from the schema name and default value. This partial compensation earns a middle score.

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's purpose: 'Search contacts by name, email, or phone number.' It specifies the verb ('search'), the resource ('contacts'), and the searchable fields. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like contacts_list, but the name and content make the purpose unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as contacts_list or drive_search. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. Users are left to infer the use case.

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