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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no result ordering, no default page size, and no indication that responses are cursor-paginated, which matters for a list tool.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the resource. It is efficient, though the brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 4-parameter, paginated list tool with no output schema and no description of return shape, the definition is thin. It omits pagination behavior, the leads exclusion, and any distinction from the many other `list_*` siblings, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 75% and the description only mirrors the `type` enum values with no added semantics. It says nothing about `limit` defaults/caps, `cursor` continuation, or how `search` fields are matched — all of which the description could have clarified but does not.

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 sentence names the resource (contacts from the Directory) and enumerates the contact categories, but it never actually says it returns a list, nor does it say anything about pagination or scope. It largely restates the `type` enum and the tool title rather than stating a distinct verb+resource action.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus `get_contact` (single record) or `create_contact`, and no mention of the notable exclusion of leads (that fact lives only in the schema, and `list_leads` is a sibling that an agent could easily confuse). The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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