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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that a ready-to-read summary is returned in the `say` field — which matters because there is no output schema. It does not describe the list's contents or any pagination.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the resource and with the parameter note and output hint following. Every sentence is short and none is padded, though the opening sentence is pure duplication of the title.

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 single-optional-param read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials plus the useful `say` field pointer. It still leaves the return structure and the `company` matching behavior unspecified, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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?

With only one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'Optionally for one company' conveys that `company` is optional and acts as a filter. It does not specify matching semantics (exact name, substring, id) or that omitting it returns all contacts.

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 first sentence is a verbatim repeat of the title, so it adds no purpose information beyond what structured metadata already provides. The resource (saved recruiters/referrers) is identifiable, but the description never states the 'list' verb and does not distinguish this saved-contact listing from siblings like find_people or add_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?

'Optionally for one company' hints at filtering but gives no when-to-use guidance. There is no mention of when to reach for this versus find_people (discovering new people) or add_contact (creating entries), and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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