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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are relevance-ordered ("best matches first"), pages cap at 100 contacts, and it requires a Cotlet API key with app access. Auth and pagination context is a solid value-add.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and useful, but the "like Quick Find" analogy is asserted twice ("like Quick Find" and "the way Quick Find does"), which is redundant filler. Most remaining sentences earn their place, but the duplication costs a point.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the return burden and covers ordering ("best matches first"), the per-item contact_id field, and pagination. Auth requirements are noted too. It is nearly complete, only lacking detail on what fields each result item contains.

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%, so the schema already documents query, limit (1-100, default 25) and the contact_type enum. The description restates the query fields and the 100-item page size but adds no syntax, formatting, or matching-behavior detail beyond the 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 (find/search), resource (contacts), the searchable fields (name, phone, email, address), and the entity scope (prospects, leads, customers). It clearly distinguishes itself from the single-record sibling marketsharp_get_contact, which it references for ID reuse.

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?

It routes the agent downstream ("Use contact_id from each item in get_contact and the write tools"), which implies this is the lookup step before mutation. However it never states when to prefer this over get_contact or list-style siblings, nor any exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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