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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: how status is derived ('ZenMaid sets it from the appointments on the calendar, so a new contact stays a lead until someone books them') and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access).

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?

Reasonably tight and front-loaded, with the resource and search behavior stated up front. It does re-enumerate the four status values already present in the schema enum, which is mildly redundant, but the added status-lifecycle explanation justifies most of the length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully names the returned fields (email, phone, address, status) and covers the auth requirement. For a paginated list tool it could say more about paging via `cursor`, but overall it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns more by explaining the semantics of `status` (the four values and how ZenMaid assigns them from appointments) and confirming `query` searches name/email/phone/address. That meaning goes beyond the terse schema enum listing.

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 description conveys a specific resource (contacts) and an action (searches/lists contacts), reinforced by 'Searches contacts by name, email, phone or address.' It's clearly a list/search tool, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `zenmaid_get_contact` or `zenmaid_create_contact`.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives. The search behavior is implied by 'Searches contacts by name, email, phone or address,' but the agent gets no signal about when to prefer this over a single-contact fetch or create.

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