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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail, that the response carries a readable summary in a `say` field (no output schema exists), but says nothing about persistence, duplicate handling, or required auth.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and no filler. The closing sentence about `say` is terse to the point of being cryptic, which slightly blunts the efficiency.

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?

With 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should carry most of the load, but it documents only one parameter's value set and gives no return-shape detail beyond a bare mention of `say`. An agent could call it with just `name`, but could not confidently populate the remaining fields.

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 0% across 6 parameters. The description supplies real added value for one parameter by listing the allowed `kind` values (recruiter, referrer, hiring_manager, other), which the schema does not encode as an enum. However, role, email, notes, and company remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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+resource ('Save a recruiter or referrer') and implies the contact domain, which distinguishes it adequately from list_contacts and find_people. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so it stays just below a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_contacts, find_people, or request_introduction, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Save'. This is the definition's weakest area.

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