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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the auth requirement ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app') and the fact that search spans name/email/phone. It does not disclose pagination or return format, but with annotations present this is solid added value.

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?

The first sentence is a redundant restatement of the title and the second sentence repeats the same phrase ('contact details and sites'), so roughly a third of the text is filler. The remaining sentences are front-loaded and earn their place, but the duplication costs it.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (profiles with contact details and sites), how search behaves, why you would call it, and the auth prerequisite. Nothing essential is missing, though return shape is only described in prose.

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 both parameters (limit range/default, search fields) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's note that search matches name, email or phone duplicates the schema text rather than extending it, so this is the baseline 3.

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 ('Lists customer profiles with contact details and sites') and the sibling set (create_customer, create_job, create_quote) makes the list-vs-create distinction obvious. The opening fragment 'Tradify: Customer profiles with contact details and sites' is essentially a restatement of the title and adds nothing, but the operative sentence is precise.

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?

Gives a clear workflow context: use search to find the customer ID before creating a job or quote. It does not name a competing sibling to avoid or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended use case is explicit rather than implied.

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