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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), and the description adds real value beyond them: it scopes results to records the caller may view, clarifies it never merges or mutates, and warns that CRM field values are untrusted content. It still says nothing about result volume or pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the usage directive, then the safety caveat. Two tight sentences plus one security line; the boilerplate trust warning is generic but genuinely relevant for a tool returning user-authored CRM data.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it only loosely implies a set of candidate matches ('show unclear matches'), without describing match confidence or result shape. It also omits whether any identifier (email/name/company) is required for a useful query, notable given 0 required parameters.

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 only 14% (only workspaceId is documented in-schema), so the description must compensate. It does explain that matching uses name, email and company, which maps to firstName/lastName, email and companyId, but it leaves limit and excludeId completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('finds people ... who may be the same person as a contact you are about to create') and specifies the match keys (name, email, company). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling write tools like create_record and from generic read tools like search or list_records.

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 trigger and sequencing rule ('call it before you create a person') plus a follow-up action ('show unclear matches to the user'). It does not name an alternative tool or state when the check can be skipped, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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