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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains key behaviors like sorting by staleness (longest since last interaction first) and including zero-interaction contacts first. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but the verb 'Find' implies it. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 description is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and adds essential behavioral details without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral promise (staleness sorting, zero-interaction inclusion) but doesn't describe the return shape or how filters interact. However, the schema covers the parameters, and the description is sufficient for core understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not directly elaborate on the parameters but implicitly conveys how the staleness filter works via the sorting and inclusion behavior. It doesn't add syntax or format details, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'contacts you haven't interacted with recently'. It also provides concrete details about sorting by staleness and inclusion of zero-interaction contacts, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like contact_list or contact_timeline.

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 description sets clear context with the phrase 'the "who am I neglecting?" query', implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as pointing to contact_list for a full list, so it misses the highest bar.

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