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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of pagination, filtering behavior, response shape, or scoping—and the duplicated sentence is filler rather than disclosure.

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?

The description wastes its opening on the identical sentence twice and then an operation ID that offers no agent value. It is short but not front-loaded with useful information.

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 annotations gap (safety is covered) but zero schema coverage on two nested/free-form parameters and no output schema, an agent cannot tell what this returns or how to filter it. Pointing to describe_operation helps slightly but leaves the definition incomplete for a listing endpoint.

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 0% for two free-form parameters (query, params), so the description carries the burden. It points to describe_operation as the source of native request schemas, which is meaningful routing guidance even if it does not document the parameters inline.

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 only restates the endpoint path twice ("GET /api/counterparty-contacts"), which is effectively a tautology of the title. The URL does imply retrieving counterparty contacts, but there is no verb+resource phrasing that distinguishes it from siblings like get_counterparties_by_id_contacts or get_counterparty_contacts_by_id.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling contact/counterparty tools. The only guidance is a pointer to describe_operation for schemas, which is about parameter discovery, not tool selection.

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