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

The description contributes non-schema behavioral context by declaring the required 'generate' scope, which is genuinely additive over the annotations. But a tool named 'search' is annotated readOnlyHint=false, and the description never explains what the non-read-only side effect is (does it score, persist matches, or consume generate credits?), which is the single most important behavior to disclose here.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the access prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description should indicate what a search yields (matching contact records, match counts, or ranked candidates) and it does not. Combined with the unexplained non-read-only annotation on a 'search' tool, the definition is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about results and side effects.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'a campaign's target profiles' hints that omitting target_profile_id searches across all of the campaign's profiles while supplying it narrows to one, but the description does not state that scoping behavior explicitly.

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 ('search for contacts') with a clear qualifier ('matching a campaign's target profiles'), which tells an agent this is a profile-based discovery search rather than a plain contact lookup. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings such as search_contacts or list_campaign_contacts, so the boundary is inferable but not stated.

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 'requires generate scope' clause gives a real precondition for calling the tool, which is useful usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_contacts (global search) or list_campaign_contacts (already-attached contacts), leaving the alternative selection implied.

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