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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Review' implies a read operation and 'Missing or deleted evidence is labeled' is a genuinely useful disclosure about return content, but it never states read-only/non-destructive behavior, retention scope, pagination, or permission requirements.

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 resource and scope; the evidence-labeling note follows logically. No filler.

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?

For a read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition covers the 'what' adequately but leaves return shape, ordering, pagination, and read-only guarantees unstated.

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 compensate. It does convey that one parameter scopes to a single contact and the other to 'this workspace', which is the meaning of both parameters, but adds no format or lookup guidance for the UUIDs.

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 ('Review ... history ... for one contact') with a clear scope of what is aggregated (calls, conversations, outcomes, actions, follow-ups). It is distinguishable from contacts_list/contacts_export by being a single-contact history view, though it never names those siblings explicitly, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

The phrase 'for one contact' implies the use case but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g. contacts_list for browsing, contacts_export for bulk). An agent has to infer routing on its own.

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