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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return content (matches plus their jobs) and an auth prerequisite (Cotlet API key with access to this app), which is genuine value beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and what the tool does. There is minor redundancy between the opening clause and the 'Searches contacts by name, email or phone number' sentence, but no filler.

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-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: search inputs, return shape (matches with jobs), the recommended call sequence, and the required credential.

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 single query param is fully documented as 'Name, email or phone.' The description restates the same accepted inputs without adding matching semantics, ambiguity handling, or partial-match behavior, so it matches the baseline for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb (search/find) and resource (contacts) and goes further by noting the result shape: each match returned with its linked jobs. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from acculynx_create_contact by framing itself as the pre-check step.

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?

Explicitly prescribes timing and alternatives: run before create_contact to avoid duplicates, and use the resulting contact_id with create_job and add_contact_note. This is exactly the when-to-use and what-to-do-next guidance an agent needs.

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