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 genuine behavioral context beyond them: results are the member's own contacts, ordering is newest-updated first, and query words are scored rather than required together. It stops short of discussing pagination behavior or result-size implications, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger before the return and parameter notes. Dense but every clause carries information; minor redundancy between the description and the rich schema keeps it from a 5.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description enumerates the compact return shape (name, email, phone, company, job title, tags, needs_follow_up) and ordering, and covers the main filter options. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces a couple of the key parameters (query, needs_follow_up: true) but adds little the schema does not already state in more detail, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 (list the member's own Connections contacts) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling connections_contacts_get for single-record retrieval, so it is identifiable without opening another schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use trigger list ('member asks about their contacts, who they know, their network, people they have met, or who needs following up') and routes the agent to connections_contacts_get {id} for the single-contact case. The alternative and its selecting condition are both named.

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