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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on ordering, scope of the list, or what "last touch" means — so it neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no padding, but that brevity is under-specification rather than economy — there is no front-loaded statement of action, so the space saved is not earned.

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?

No output schema exists, schema coverage is 0%, and the description supplies no return-value or filtering context. For a list tool in a dense CRM/hunt namespace, this leaves the agent guessing at both the operation and the enum filter's behavior.

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% and the single `relationship` enum has an empty description, so the description carries the burden. It mentions "relationship" as a concept but does not explain the filter's semantics or the five enum values (cold, contacted, responsive, warm_scout, dead), and "source" and "last touch" are not even parameters, so it adds only marginal clarity.

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 is a noun phrase, not a verb+resource statement: "People with relationship, source, and last touch." It signals the resource (contacts) and the attributes they carry, but never says whether it lists, filters, or summarizes them, so an agent cannot tell it apart from siblings like crm_list_contacts, hunt_get_contact, or hunt_due without opening the schema.

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 call this versus hunt_get_contact (single record), hunt_pipeline (stage view), or crm_list_contacts. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.

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