search_email_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description indicates a read-only search operation with no side effects. It adds context about the purpose (linking to email), but does not detail behavior like no-results handling or pagination.

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 with a title prefix. However, it includes a placeholder '[query]' and a semicolon, which slightly detracts from clarity.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not specify the return format (e.g., list of contacts with IDs) or behavior for no results or pagination. This is a significant gap 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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'query' described as 'Texto de busqueda (nombre o telefono)'. The description repeats this but adds the linking context, providing marginal added value beyond the 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 explicitly states the tool searches contacts by name or phone to link to email threads. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like link_email_contact or resolve_email_contact by focusing on the search action.

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 specifies the context of linking contacts to email threads, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives like 'use link_email_contact after finding the contact'.

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