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 and the description adds only the return-field summary (status, tags, pipeline stage), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or result caps beyond what the limit parameter itself documents.

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?

Three short sentences with the resource stated first, then the filtering capability, then the return payload. No filler; the only arguable redundancy is re-mentioning search fields already covered by the schema.

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, the sentence about returned fields (status, tags, pipeline stage) is valuable, and the read-only annotations cover safety. Gaps remain: no indication of result ordering, pagination beyond the limit cap, or how this differs from get_contact_360 for a richer view of the same resource.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameters are richly documented, including the accent/case-insensitive semantics of `etiquetas` and the hard-bounce behavior of `email_status`. The description merely restates the `search` dimension, so the baseline 3 applies — it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("Lista contatos do CRM") and adds what can be searched and which fields are returned. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from near-neighbors such as get_contact or get_contact_360, leaving the agent to infer which one to pick.

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?

Searching by name, phone or email implies the listing/filtering use case, so usage is reasonably implied. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to get_contact (single record) or get_contact_360 (enriched view), which are the obvious alternatives in this sibling set.

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