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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that per-address failures do not fail the whole call and are reported individually, which is key behavioral information. It also mentions the resolution is same as single request, setting expectations for semantics. This is good transparency but could be more explicit about other behaviors like rate limits.

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 description is a single sentence and is reasonably concise. It front-loads the key batching capability and includes important exception handling. However, it could be broken into two sentences for readability, but it is not overly verbose.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the calling behavior, error handling, and parameter context adequately. It mentions the 'same way as single request' which gives behavioral context. The main gap is that it doesn't describe what the success response looks like or provide examples of error entry format, but for the complexity level, it is fairly complete.

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?

The schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters clearly ('addresses' format and tenant_key condition). The description adds minimal extra semantics beyond the schema: it explains the per-address error handling but not parameter-specific details. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description adds some value but not significant new parameter insight.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to request contacts with up to 50 addresses at once. It uses a specific verb ('request contact') and references the resource (addresses), and implies batching. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like host.agent.contact_request, but the batching aspect is clear from the description.

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 indicates this is for batch requests, implying use when you need to request multiple contacts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the batching context is clear. It also notes per-address failure handling, which helps set expectations. However, no direct comparison to single-request alternatives is given.

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