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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: the contact persists in the account and on its other lists, clarifying that this is a scoped unlink rather than a data-destroying delete. It does not cover failure behavior when the contact is absent from the list, though idempotentHint implies a safe no-op.

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 sentences, no filler. The primary action and its scope come first, with the sibling redirect placed after the essential semantics.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool with rich annotations, the description supplies exactly the missing piece — what happens to the contact after removal — and routes full deletion elsewhere. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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%, and both parameters already document their provenance (listId from directiq_list_lists, contactId from directiq_list_contacts or directiq_get_contact). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Remove a contact from one list') and explicitly separates this operation from the destructive sibling directiq_delete_contact. The agent can distinguish removal-from-list from full deletion without inspecting either 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?

It states the usage boundary directly: this tool removes from one list, and 'to delete the contact entirely, use directiq_delete_contact'. That is an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative rule naming the correct sibling tool.

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