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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what the response contains ('with their ids'), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination or whether results are team-scoped vs. global, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the downstream use case appended rather than buried. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 zero-argument read tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and interpret the result (a list of contacts with ids). Minor gaps remain on result shape beyond ids and on scoping, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies.

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 team notification contacts') and clarifies the domain term with a parenthetical ('alert destinations'), so the agent knows exactly what entity is returned. This is clearly separable from siblings like list-monitors, list-incidents, and create-notification-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?

The trailing clause 'so you can attach them to monitors' supplies a concrete usage scenario that routes the agent: call this to obtain ids before configuring a monitor. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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