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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it lists the returned fields, notes that one-off contacts are absent, and states the Cotlet API key requirement. It omits pagination/limit behavior for a tool that has a cursor parameter.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the returned fields. The opening 'searchable by name or email' is repeated almost verbatim in the following sentence, which is a minor waste, but the auth note and the Einmalkontakte exclusion each earn their place.

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 fully-specified, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, exclusions, and auth — everything needed to invoke it. The only gap is paging behavior around the cursor parameter.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented in the schema; the description restates the searchable fields but adds nothing about role filtering, limit bounds, or how cursor paging interacts with the result set. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource (list/search saved contacts) plus the scoping domain — customers and suppliers in Lexware Office — and the searchable fields (name, email, customer number). It also names what is excluded (Einmalkontakte), which cleanly separates it from create_contact and from document-only one-off names an agent might otherwise expect to find.

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 implies usage (search saved contacts by name/email/number) and carves out one-off names, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings or that the cursor must be reused for paging. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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