Search Contacts

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, but the description only restates the search functionality without additional disclosures like result scope, pagination behavior, or user-specific data access.

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 that accurately conveys the core function. It is concise with no wasted words, well-suited for its simple purpose.

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?

While the schema and annotations are enriched, the description fails to provide usage context. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related list_contacts tool, leaving a gap in how the agent should choose between them. For a tool with many siblings, more explicit context is expected.

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 100% with each parameter having a helpful description. The main description's mention of name, email, and phone number is redundant with the query parameter description, adding no new semantic value. Baseline of 3 applies given the strong 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 clearly states the tool searches contacts by name, email, phone number, or other fields, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_contacts or get_contact, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 search_contacts versus list_contacts or get_contact. There are no alternatives mentioned, exclusions, or contextual triggers for choosing this tool.

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