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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive safety, and the description adds real value beyond them: result cap (5 per kind), the shape of each hit (kind, id, label), and the environment-dependent omission of Deals. It doesn't cover ranking/ordering of hits or behavior on ambiguous matches, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tight sentences: what it does and returns first, then routing to the get_* siblings with the returned id, then routing to list_* for filtering. Every clause earns its place, including the Deals-module caveat.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, result cardinality, return fields, next-step routing, and the one environment dependency. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the 2-character minimum, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic breadth by mapping what the single query string can match (name fragment, email, domain), which is more than the schema states.

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 (find) and the exact resource types (Contact, Company, Deal) plus the matching keys (name fragment, email, domain). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the get_* siblings (you don't have an id) and from list_* siblings (they filter/sort/page).

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?

Explicit when-to-use: when you lack an id or don't know the record kind. Explicit alternatives: pass the returned id to get_contact/get_company/get_deal, and use list_* to filter, sort or page. Also gives a negative condition (Workspace lacking the Deals module).

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