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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It makes clear this is a filtered, paginated read and implies the deduplication purpose, but says nothing about return contents, default ordering, default page size, or permissions.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its filters, and closing with the operational rule. Every clause adds information; there is no filler.

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?

For a four-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters and the deduplication workflow. It is slightly incomplete in not hinting at what a returned contact record looks like or how results are ordered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: 'busca' is explained as a textual search across name, email and phone, which the schema does not convey, and 'tipo' plus pagination are identified as filters. It does not spell out the pessoa/empresa enum values (already in the schema) or the limit/offset bounds.

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 ('Lista contatos do CRM') and immediately scopes it with the available filters (textual search by name/email/phone, type, pagination). It is clearly distinguishable from a single-record retrieval like contato_get, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 an explicit, emphatic when-to-use rule: always call before creating an opportunity or a new contact to avoid duplicates. It does not state exclusions or name alternative list tools, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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