Search Contacts

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the endpoint [POST /contacts/search], the required scope contacts.readonly, and a documentation link, which is useful but does not describe response shape, pagination, or filtering behavior.

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 short and mostly readable, but it opens with a redundant 'Search Contacts' that repeats the title before providing real content. The endpoint and scope line is useful, though the overall structure is slightly clumsy with a long inline documentation link.

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 an advanced search endpoint with a completely undefined request body and no output schema, this description is not complete enough. It provides the endpoint, scope, and a docs link, but omits any details about the available filters, required body fields, pagination, or return values, which are critical for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema exposes only an opaque 'body' object with no defined properties and only the generic description 'Full request body'. The tool description mentions 'advanced filters' but does not enumerate filter fields, value formats, or example structures, so an agent cannot confidently construct a valid request body.

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 using combinations of advanced filters, with a specific verb and resource. It is more specific than the title alone and hints at how it differs from simpler list/get contact siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'combinations of advanced filters' implies usage when a caller needs complex contact search beyond simple retrieval, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative contact tools. Usage context is only implied, so it does not fully route an agent.

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