google-contacts_search_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'search across all contacts with text query' and does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (though pageSize parameter exists), or any side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool. Every word earns its place, though slightly more detail could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain which contact fields are searched, how sources work, pagination limits, or the return format. Agents may miss critical behavior details. The schema provides some cues, but description should summarize key aspects.

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% (all 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it does not explain how the query matches fields or how sources affect results). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'search' and resource 'contacts' with a qualifier 'across all contacts', clearly indicating a full-text search functionality. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_contacts (non-query listing) and get_contact (single contact retrieval).

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 implies this tool is for text-based query searches across contacts, which contrasts with list_contacts (no filtering) and get_contact (by ID). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the purpose is clear given the tool name and context.

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