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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds no behavioural context beyond that — no note on default ordering, result-count limits, or what happens when multiple companies exist (that lives 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 short sentences with zero filler, and the resource definition is front-loaded before the usage cue. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the description covers what it does and when. The only minor gap is that multi-company scoping is left entirely to the 'company' parameter's own schema text.

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 every parameter including the subtle 'company' selector is documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's mention of clients/suppliers/leads loosely mirrors the 'type' filter but adds no syntax or format detail.

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+resource ("List contacts") and immediately disambiguates the resource with a parenthetical (clients, suppliers, leads). No sibling is named as a contrast, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can tell this apart from get_accounts_status or list_opportunities.

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 when user asks about customers, suppliers, or contacts" gives implied trigger conditions but names no alternative tool and no exclusions. It does not clarify overlap with supplier/creditor-flavoured siblings such as get_bills or get_aged_creditors, so the guidance is useful but incomplete.

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