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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint and idempotent/non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results are tenant-scoped and that exact-match filters exist for import previews, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first and the filter/preview note second; no filler. The semicolon-joined clause is slightly dense but earns its place by naming the main filter families.

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 8 optional parameters, an output schema and full annotation coverage, most of the burden is carried structurally, so the description is adequate. It is still thin on how the filters combine (AND vs override) and on the relationship between cursor and offset, which an agent would want before calling.

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 the baseline is 3. The description echoes only three of eight parameters (sourceLabel, tag, linkedinProfileUrl) and adds no format or precedence rules beyond the schema, leaving query, limit, cursor, offset and icpFitState entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Searches ... contacts') with a meaningful scope qualifier ('tenant-scoped'), which lets an agent separate it from contact_get/contact_create/contact_update. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling search tools (company_search, campaign_search), but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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 trailing clause 'support import previews' implies one concrete use case, and 'exact' qualifiers hint that lookups are exact-match rather than fuzzy. There is no explicit when-to-use vs contact_get or when-not guidance, so the agent must infer.

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