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

The GET verb implies a read-only operation, and the explicit-company requirement is disclosed. With no annotations, however, the description does not cover permissions, error behavior, or what the 'overview' scope includes.

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 is short, front-loaded, and free of filler. The fragment style is efficient, though slightly cryptic.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the query shape and sibling selection. It does not define what the overview contains or when to prefer this over similar contact tools.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It maps company_name to the explicit-company requirement, places contactId in the endpoint path, and describes query as flat filter fields, though it leaves the actual filter syntax to another tool.

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 identifies a GET endpoint for a contact overview, which gives a specific verb-and-resource pair. However, 'overview' is not defined, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_contact or get_contact_sales_overview.

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 states that an explicit company is required and points to describe_nextesy_operation for filters, which is useful context. But it gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_contact or get_contact_sales_overview.

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