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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral criteria (staleness threshold, signal types) but does not disclose other aspects like default limits, filtering behavior, or return format. This is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key criteria. Every phrase earns its place without verbosity or repetition.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description conveys the core use case but leaves out details like the 'limit' parameter, potential filtering syntax, and what the returned data looks like, making it only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains min_days_stale (90 days implied) and signal_filter types (hiring, funding, job changes), but does not clarify the 'limit' parameter or how signal_filter is used exactly. Partial compensation.

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 ('Find') with a clear resource ('stale contacts') and defines precise criteria (90+ days no follow-up, fresh growth signals). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like search_contacts or get_dashboard_stats by focusing on warm re-engagement opportunities.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (identifying re-engagement opportunities from stale contacts with new signals). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the specific scenario is unambiguous.

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