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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds output behavior the annotations cannot: a paged result with the total and next_offset, default ordering by most-recently-seen unless sort overrides, and that the call is free. It does not discuss rate limits or cost of large limits, but the pagination contract is a real addition.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the search modes, followed by return shape and then the cost caveat. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated.

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 9-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers return contents and pagination, which is the critical missing piece. It is slightly thin on the two undocumented filter-ish params (lifecycle_stage, include_archived), but overall an agent could call it correctly.

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 only 44%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for query (name/email/company/phone), filters (any field, tag or custom field) and segment (saved segment), plus default sort semantics, but lifecycle_stage and include_archived go unmentioned and limit/offset are only gestured at via 'page/next_offset'.

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 (search the CRM for contacts) and enumerates the lookup modes: name/email/company/phone, field/tag/custom-field filters, or a saved segment. It does not distinguish itself from the generic crm_search or route to/away from crm_find_companies and crm_find_deals, which are the closest siblings.

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 is implied through the enumeration of input modes (free-text query, filters, segment), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. It never says how it differs from crm_search, or that crm_find_companies/crm_find_deals should be used for other record types.

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