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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the returned fields and the contact states (pending, accepted, blocked), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite a limit capped at 500.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by return values. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence could have been spent on the undocumented limit parameter instead.

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, describing the return fields and contact states is exactly the right use of space, so the response shape is covered. However, the single input parameter and the truncation/pagination behavior remain unexplained, leaving an agent unable to reason about partial results.

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?

There is one parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it — yet the description never mentions the limit, its default of 100, or what happens when more contacts exist. The gap is unmitigated.

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 and resource (list the user's mosadd contacts) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It also names the downstream tools that consume identity_id, which helps separate it from mDM_list, though it doesn't clarify what mDM_list itself returns.

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 rather than stated: the description signals this is the way to obtain identity_id for mDM_send / mDM_list, but never says when to call this versus mDM_list_my_agents or other listing tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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