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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds input-tolerance detail ("phone number (any format)") and a cost note ("Free"), but discloses nothing about how matches are returned — no ranking, ambiguity handling, or default result count (limit defaults to 5, max 25, stated only in the schema).

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 waste, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the payoff (record ids). "Free" is a compact, useful cost signal rather than 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?

With no output schema and no param descriptions, the description does enough to call it correctly: what inputs are accepted, what comes back conceptually (ids), and that it is a cheap read. The remaining gap is result-set behavior — whether multiple matches come back, how they are ordered, and that the count is capped by `limit`.

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 description must carry the semantics — and it does for the required `query`, enumerating six accepted input kinds (name, email, phone in any format, domain, company name, deal title). The `limit` parameter is never mentioned in the description, though its default and maximum are visible in 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?

Specific verb ("Find") plus explicit resource enumeration ("contacts, companies and deals") and a scope claim ("in one call") that implicitly sets it apart from the single-type siblings crm_find_contacts / crm_find_companies / crm_find_deals. It stops short of naming those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

"Use it to turn what someone told you into record ids" gives a genuine use case (entity resolution from fuzzy human input), but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many overlapping search tools (crm_find_contacts, lookup_company, companies_search, hubspot_search). The agent must guess which search surface to pick.

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