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

No annotations are provided, but the description is read-only by implication and discloses useful behavior such as result ordering (most recently seen first) and the fields searched. It does not describe return structure, pagination behavior, or permissions.

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?

A single well-packed sentence with the key behavior front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the phrase 'with their fiche' is slightly ambiguous and could be clearer.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers listing, ordering, and search fields. It leaves the return format and what 'fiche' includes unspecified, which is a gap given there is no output schema.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description only reinforces that search matches name, company, and address; it adds no syntax or format details 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?

States a specific verb (lists/searches) and resource (contacts of the account), plus ordering and search fields. It clearly differs from get_contact or create_contact, though it does not explicitly differentiate from list_people or other list tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use it to list or search contacts. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like list_people or get_contact, nor any when-not conditions.

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