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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it fails. Saying behavior matches "website, API and CLI" is circular and does not disclose what authorization is required, whether existing contacts are overwritten or duplicated, what happens on partial failure, or any rate limits.

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 short sentences, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. The one substantive sentence is front-loaded after a redundant restatement of the name.

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?

A bulk-mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation needs far more: what is created/overwritten, validation failure semantics, and batch size behavior. None of that is present.

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% for two required parameters, including a nested 500-item contact array with fields like destination, source, externalRef and eligibility that are entirely undocumented. The description adds no meaning for workspaceId or the contact object shape, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"SAGOT contacts.import" merely restates the tool name, and the only other sentence talks about authorization/validation parity rather than what the tool actually does. An agent learns nothing about the operation (bulk create contacts? upsert? merge?) beyond the verb implied by the name.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings like contacts_update, contacts_erase, contacts_suppress and contacts_list, the description gives no condition for choosing import over those alternatives, nor any prerequisite or limit context.

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