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

Annotations already declare this is non-read-only, destructive, open-world, and idempotent. The description usefully adds that the action consumes tokens and that retries do not charge twice, but it does not explain what makes the action destructive or what side effects occur beyond the token cost.

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 front-loaded and compact, packing the target types, token cost, required inputs, and retry behavior into one sentence. It is slightly dense but contains no wasted clauses.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials—ID sources, required intent/reason, token cost, and idempotency. It still leaves the agent without a clear picture of what the destructive side effect actually is or what happens after the contact is opened.

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 all four parameters, including the ID prefixes, intent enum, reason constraints, and request_key idempotency semantics. The description reinforces intent/reason and ID sourcing but adds little beyond what the structured schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: opening a contact with either a quest candidate or a catalog person. It immediately clarifies the accepted ID prefixes (lead, response, search, person) and their source tools, so an agent can distinguish this from sibling lookup tools.

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 clearly says to use this when contacting a quest candidate from quest_status or a catalog person from find_people, and it requires intent plus the reason in the person's own words. It stops short of explicitly naming when not to use it or naming a sibling alternative for the same action.

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