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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: RLS scoping, the pagination contract, and the specific has_more caveat. This lets an agent reason about result completeness and repeated calls without contradiction.

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 core purpose first, followed by the most important constraint and a practical warning. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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-only list tool, the description covers the correctness-critical behavior: scope, limit, pagination contract, and the has_more pitfall. The output schema handles return-value details, and annotations cover idempotence and read-only safety, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema already describes all four parameters individually, so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds pagination context and a usage warning, but it does not materially extend the semantics of limit, cursor, offset, or search 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List CRM contacts'. The RLS-scoped qualifier and the resource name clearly distinguish it from sibling crm_get_deals and crm_get_leads tools. An agent can identify what this tool does and what it operates on immediately.

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 description gives actionable usage guidance about pagination: max limit 200, response shape with pagination.total/has_more/next_cursor, and an explicit warning not to count a page as complete while has_more is true. It does not name alternatives, but the resource distinction alone is enough to route picking this tool over sibling get tools.

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