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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful workflow framing of using results to obtain an id before a mutation, but says nothing about result limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema's page description, or how matches are ranked.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The capability is front-loaded and the workflow instruction follows immediately; nothing repeats the title or annotations.

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 still conveys the key output fact an agent needs - results carry an id usable in later mutations - and annotations carry the safety profile. What's missing is any statement about pagination or result size, though the schema's page field covers that partially.

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 67%: 'page' and 'fields' are documented in the schema, but the required 'query' parameter has no schema description at all. The description compensates by naming the searchable attributes (name, email, phone, identifier, company name), which is real added meaning for the one undocumented parameter and exceeds the baseline 3.

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 (Find) and resource (contacts) and enumerates the searchable attributes - name, email, phone number, identifier, company name - so the agent knows what 'query' matches against. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_contacts, get_contact, or contact_filter, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear just-in-time guidance: 'Call this before making a change to a contact, to get its id.' That is a concrete workflow condition, not a generic hint. It names no alternative tool (e.g. list_contacts for browsing, get_contact for id lookup) and states no exclusions, so it stays below a 5.

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