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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is to add detail. It does: all lists cap at 5 with the per-area tools holding the remainder, lookup can fan out to a company's contacts' records, and it is explicitly "Free." Only the exact response shape/pagination beyond the cap is unaddressed, and no output schema exists, so a 4.

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?

Purpose and lookup modes are front-loaded ahead of the long enumeration of returned sections, so the agent gets the essentials first. The manifest of data areas is long but each item earns its place by revealing what comes back; only the volume makes it denser than ideal.

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 multi-domain aggregate tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned sections and the 5-per-list cap well enough that an agent knows what to expect. The gap is the lack of clarity on how the three optional lookup keys interact and which one takes effect, minor against the otherwise rich disclosure.

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 carry the parameter load, and it names all three selectors: contact_id, email, and company_id, noting company_id also pulls its contacts' records. It does not state precedence or mutual exclusivity when multiple keys are supplied, nor that all are optional, so it is strong but not complete.

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 names a specific verb (read) and a composite resource (the contact/company plus everything open with them: deals, tickets, invoices, quotes, e-sign docs, meetings, last interactions, newsletters, attribution). An agent can distinguish this aggregate view from the per-record siblings like crm_get_contact, crm_get_company, and crm_get_deal without opening a schema.

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?

"One read before you answer someone" positions this as the first call for a customer question, and "each area's own tools have the rest" points the agent to the per-domain siblings for more than the 5-item cap. It stops short of stating explicit when-not conditions or naming the exact alternative tools, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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