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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: capped page size, a next_cursor for pagination, and the required read_crm scope.

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 tight sentences with the capability and filters front-loaded, followed by return shape and auth requirement. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the key return contract (contacts plus next_cursor) and the auth scope. Complete for a search tool; only a note on total-count or empty-result behavior is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented including the enum-like status list and the nested custom-field object. The description restates the filter surfaces but adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('contacts'), then enumerates the filter dimensions (text, status, source, company, custom field). This clearly separates it from sibling mutations like update_contact and upsert_contact.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter list and the read_crm scope note, but the description never says when to prefer this over enumerating contacts another way, nor any exclusion conditions. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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