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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and clearly discloses that this is non-mutating: it is a dry run and nothing changes. It also indicates that it shows the contact that would be removed, though it does not cover permissions, failure behavior, or response detail.

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 very short, front-loaded with 'Dry run,' and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes directly to the preview/no-change meaning.

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 tool with two required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It establishes the non-mutating preview behavior but leaves parameter meaning and expected return context insufficiently specified.

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 does not explain either required parameter. It never clarifies what id or search_id represent, so the agent gets no semantic guidance beyond the schema's UUID types.

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 states a specific preview action for a contact: it is a dry run that shows which contact would be removed. This clearly separates it from an actual deletion in purpose, though it does not name the sibling delete tool explicitly.

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 'Dry run' and 'Nothing changes' imply this is used before an actual removal, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over sdr_delete_person or sdr_preview_bulk_delete_people. Usage is understandable but left implicit.

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