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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully reinforces this by saying the MCP connection cannot create or delete contacts and that records originate in the app or browser extension. It adds origin and immutability context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about result ordering or pagination 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?

Purpose is stated in the first sentence before any detail, and the bullet list is scannable. The enumerated status values are somewhat redundant with the schema enum, which is the only real padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers origin, scope, and the read-only constraint. The main omission is any relationship to the sibling get_contact for single-record retrieval, which matters given the agent’s tool selection task.

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 name, skip, take and status are already fully documented. The description merely restates the six status values that already appear in the enum, adding no new meaning such as what “cold” or “connected” signify. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (searches) and resource (job-search contacts) with a clarifying inventory of who those contacts are: recruiters, hiring managers, referrals, networking. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_contact, so an agent must infer that one is search and the other is single-record fetch.

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 bulleted “Use this tool to” list gives three concrete situations (pre-outreach lookup, pre-interview company research, stage review), which is clear positive guidance. It also states the negative constraint that creation/deletion happens elsewhere, but never names an alternative tool such as get_contact, so the routing is not fully resolved.

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