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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that pagination is optional, with no mention of ordering, default page size, total counts, or what happens at the end of the list — thin value beyond structured data.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than genuinely tight.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say something about the returned shape — whether it includes pagination metadata or a contact list — and it says nothing. For a list tool whose sibling directiq_contact_count exists, the missing relation and return description leave real gaps.

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%, with 'page' documented as 1-based and 'pageSize' capped at 500, so baseline 3 applies. The description's 'optionally paginated' merely restates that both parameters are optional and adds no format or default guidance.

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+resource ('List contacts') that an agent can match against siblings like directiq_list_lists or directiq_list_tags. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from directiq_contact_count or directiq_get_contact, but the resource naming makes the distinction inferable.

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?

No statement of when to prefer this over directiq_contact_count or directiq_get_contact, and no prerequisites. The only usage hint is 'optionally paginated', which is about mechanics rather than tool selection.

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