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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the organization scope and filtering options but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., default pagination behavior or that unfiltered returns all contacts). There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that states the core function and key optional features. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with thorough annotations and complete schema descriptions, the description is adequate. It gives the key purpose and filter options, but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling search/export tools and does not mention all filter types in prose. Overall, it is complete enough for a simple filtered-list operation.

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 coverage is 100%, with all six parameters having descriptions. The description repeats 'search term, tag, and pagination' which maps to search, tag, page/limit, but omits doNotBroadcast and doNotAutoRespond. Since the schema already provides full parameter semantics, the description adds minimal extra value, matching the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Retrieve'), resource ('all contacts'), and scope ('for the current organization'), and mentions optional filtering and pagination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like neuron_search_contacts or neuron_semantic_search_contacts, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as neuron_search_contacts, neuron_export_contacts, or neuron_get_contact. The description implies a general listing use case but does not state exclusions or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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