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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default limit of 50 and the ability to increase up to 200, noting a potential maximum discrepancy with the schema (which allows 1000). While it doesn't explain all side effects, the read-only nature is implicit, and it provides useful default behavior information.

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, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The exception about limit is placed at the end, but still relevant. No fluff, every word contributes.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, usage context, and default behavior. Minor omissions like explicit mention of read-only or response format are covered by annotations being absent but the description is adequate. The limit discrepancy is a small gap but doesn't hinder core usage.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds context by mentioning the default limit and the upper bound (200) which is not fully consistent with schema, and clarifies that search is free-text. This adds marginal value beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline.

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 clearly states the tool lists the user's contacts with optional search and pagination, which is specific and distinguishes it from other contact operations (get/update/delete). It also mentions using it to summarize who's in the CRM, adding purpose clarity.

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?

Explicitly says to use this before calling get/update/delete on a contact, and mentions summarizing the CRM. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly suggests it is not for individual contact retrieval or modification, differentiating from sibling tools.

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