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

With no annotations, the description does the work of disclosing behavior: it returns raw CSV, warns that output 'can be large,' and states it is 'Read-only, free.' This gives an agent a solid safety and performance profile, though it does not mention truncation, pagination, or encoding.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core action and output fields, and every sentence adds value — including the size warning and read-only/free clarification. No wasted words.

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?

The output side is well covered, partially compensating for the missing output schema. However, the input side is not: with no annotations and no parameter explanations, an agent cannot confidently determine what role, company, or min_relevance do before calling the tool.

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%, and the description adds almost no input parameter meaning. 'An SDR search' hints at search_id, but role, company, and min_relevance are entirely unexplained, leaving an agent unable to understand the optional filters.

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 uses a specific verb-resource phrase ('Export the contacts of an SDR search as CSV text'), enumerates the included fields, and explicitly narrows scope with 'Contacts ONLY — deliberately carries no scores or signal reasoning.' This makes its role unambiguous against the many sdr_* siblings.

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 clear contextual guidance: use this tool when you need raw contact CSV leaving the platform, and do not expect scores or signal reasoning. It stops short of naming a specific sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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