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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that free text spans first/last name, email, and company, and that results come with a total. It says nothing extra about ordering, pagination interaction, or how the 200-row cap behaves when more matches exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the filters first and the return shape last, with no filler or repetition. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and all six parameters are documented at 100% coverage, so the description is functionally sufficient. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against list_contacts and find_contact, which matters given how crowded that namespace is.

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 the baseline is 3. The description largely restates schema content — the free-text fields, the lifecycle enum values, and 'has a phone number' mirror the q, lifecycle, and has_phone descriptions verbatim, adding little interpretation beyond them.

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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (CRM contacts), and enumerates the three filter dimensions (free text, stage, lifecycle/phone presence) that define its behavior. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like list_contacts or find_contact, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 enumerated filters — you reach for this when filtering contacts by text, stage, lifecycle, or phone presence — but there is no explicit when-not or routing to find_contact/list_contacts. The prerequisite for valid stage names lives in the schema (list_pipeline_stages) rather than being reinforced here.

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