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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context. It does disclose one useful behavioral fact — the result set includes gap/unresolved contacts as well as named ones — but says nothing about ordering, volume, or how departed contacts are treated by default.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding. Its compactness costs clarity — 'provenance' and 'human-entered network fields' carry no concrete meaning — but structurally it is efficient.

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 and no annotations explaining the shape of results, the description must convey what the agent gets back. It gestures at this ('provenance', 'network fields') but leaves key domain terms and the gap-vs-named distinction unexplained, so an agent cannot fully predict the payload.

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 the single enum parameter is documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description hints that the default returns all states ('named and gaps'), which is mildly useful, but it never mentions the 'departed' enum value or how the filter interacts with those three states.

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?

It states the resource and scope ('Every contact across accounts') and signals that unresolved 'gap' contacts are included, which separates it from a single-record getter. However, there is no explicit verb and jargon like 'gaps', 'provenance' and 'human-entered network fields' is undefined, so an agent must infer that this is a read/list operation and guess what the returned fields mean.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus crm_get_contact, crm_gaps, crm_coverage, or crm_list_contacts-like siblings such as hunt_contacts. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions; the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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