fcrm search contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the lightweight keyed-by-ID return shape, the load_default fallback when no term is given, and the required capability (fcrm_read_contacts or fcrm_manage_contacts) enforced by SubscriberPolicy. This auth/permission disclosure is real value not present in the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape in the first two sentences, then the fallback behavior and auth requirement. No filler, though the capability/policy enforcement block is slightly ceremonial for a read tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return (lightweight, keyed by ID) and the no-term default behavior, and it discloses the permission requirement. Minor gaps remain (e.g., how the `values` always-include parameter interacts with paging), but it is substantively complete for a search tool.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the search-term and load_default behaviors but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (search contacts) and goes further by describing the return shape ('lightweight object of contacts keyed by ID') and the intended surface (dropdowns/autocomplete). It distinguishes itself functionally from siblings like fcrm_list_contacts by emphasizing lightweight search output, though it never names the sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Implies when to use it via 'suitable for dropdowns and autocomplete widgets' and notes the no-search-term fallback (load_default). However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over fcrm_list_contacts or fcrm_get_contact, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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