mautic_search_contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are driven by Mautic search syntax and names the paging/ordering knobs, but it says nothing about result shape, ordering defaults, or what `minimal` changes in the response.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the endpoint and parameters, then the search syntax cheat sheet. The parameter enumeration largely duplicates the schema, but the rest earns its space and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could reasonably say what a contact record contains, but it does not. The largest gap is `minimal`, an undocumented flag whose effect on the payload an agent cannot infer; for a 6-parameter search tool with half its schema undocumented, this is adequate but not complete.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the schema documents limit, start and search (partially), while orderBy, orderByDir and minimal have no field-level descriptions. The description compensates for `search` with concrete syntax examples (email:*@example.com, tag:vip, segment:alias), which is real added value, but it simply restates the other parameter names without explaining them.

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?

"Search contacts" is a clear verb+resource, and the mention of the underlying GET /api/contacts confirms it is a read/filter operation over the contacts collection. It does not, however, distinguish itself from mautic_get_contact or explain whether this is the general list-all endpoint, so sibling differentiation is left to the caller.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the endpoint: use this to find contacts by criteria. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer mautic_get_contact (single contact by ID) over this search, nor any guidance on what happens when `search` is omitted (presumably returns all contacts).

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