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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: result ordering (newest first), mutual exclusivity of filters, and the cursor round-trip protocol ('Pass next_cursor back as cursor for the next page'). It does not mention default page size or that results may be empty for unmatched filters.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the paging instruction. The filter list is dense but every clause earns its place; the nested parenthetical in the middle slightly interrupts scanning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape — it does this only indirectly via the `next_cursor` instruction. For a read-only 6-parameter paged list tool, though, the essential calling information (ordering, filter exclusivity, paging) is all 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 coverage is 67%, with `limit` and `project_id` undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining the mutual exclusivity of `search`/`tag`/`email` and by clarifying that `email` is an exact-address lookup versus `search`'s name/email word matching — distinctions the schema's one-line descriptions only partly convey.

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 ('Page through a project's contacts'), plus ordering ('newest first') and the three narrowing modes. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_contact by noting exact-email is 'the way to look a contact up by address', but it never names a sibling tool outright.

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 'optionally narrowed by one of' gives the key usage rule that the three filters are alternatives rather than combinable, and the second sentence explains the paging loop. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. use get_contact when you already have an ID, or export_contact for bulk dumps).

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