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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the gap_note is preserved on the row and provenance requirements still apply. It does not state what happens if the gap row is already resolved or whether a duplicate contact results, which are the remaining unknowns.

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?

The outcome is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the exclusivity rule and the provenance constraint. Three short sentences with no filler; the (CRM-2) reference is the only item that costs an agent anything without a payoff.

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 eight parameters, a mutation annotation set, and no output schema, the description covers the conceptual model (gap becomes named, gap_note retained) adequately. It leaves open edge behavior an agent would want before calling: what happens when the contact already exists, and what a failed resolution returns.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight fields well, which sets the baseline at 3. The provenance framing in the description reinforces why source matters but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema 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?

The description states a concrete verb and outcome — "Turn a gap into a named contact" — and adds an exclusivity claim ("The only way a gap becomes named") that separates it from generic contact tools like crm_add_contact. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than handed over.

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 only way a gap becomes named" and the required gap row context imply this is only for pre-existing gap rows, and "the gap does not lower the bar" signals the provenance requirement. However, no alternative is named for the non-gap case and there are no explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites spelled out.

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