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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by enumerating the returned fields (id, email, phone, tags, Do Not Disturb status) and stating the agency-scoped precondition, which is genuinely useful context for planning a call.

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 compact sentences that front-load the scope and precondition before the usage advice. The trailing clause about checking with the agency is slightly conversational but still earns its place as a verification step.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the precondition, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only pagination/limit behavior and disambiguation from other find_* siblings are left implicit.

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%, so both query and limit are already documented in the schema, including the default of 10 and the maximum of 25. The description repeats the searchable fields but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (search), a specific resource (its own GoHighLevel contacts), the searchable fields (name, email, phone, company), and the precondition (agency with GoHighLevel connected). It also distinguishes itself from the messaging siblings ghl_send_sms and ghl_send_email by positioning itself as the id-lookup step that precedes them.

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 gives a clear when-to-use: obtain the correct contact id before calling ghl_send_sms or ghl_send_email, and confirm the identity with the agency. It does not, however, distinguish itself from other lookup-style siblings such as find_client or find_prospects, so the agent gets routing guidance but no exclusions.

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