contacts_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search Google Contacts' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether authentication is required, what permissions are needed, how results are paginated or limited, or what the output format is. The description lacks critical behavioral details for a search tool.

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 extremely concise with just three words: 'Search Google Contacts.' It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of efficient communication without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search operation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which should describe return values), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context about authentication, search scope, or sibling tool differentiation, which are important for effective use. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description mentions 'Search' which implies a query parameter, aligning with the single required 'query' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add any details about the query format, syntax, or supported search operators. It provides minimal semantic context, meeting the baseline for a tool with one parameter.

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 'Search Google Contacts' states the basic action (search) and resource (Google Contacts), but it's vague about scope and functionality. It doesn't specify what fields are searched or how results are returned, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like contacts_get or contacts_create_or_update. This provides minimal but adequate purpose information.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use contacts_search versus contacts_get (for retrieving specific contacts) or contacts_create_or_update (for modifying contacts), nor does it indicate any prerequisites or context for usage. This leaves the agent with no usage differentiation.

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