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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: the BYO token requirement, the v2 `pit-` token plus locationId distinction, and the concrete return envelope with contact fields. It does not mention rate limits or pagination details, but those are partially covered by the limit parameter.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, then query behavior and return format, then auth requirements. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the return envelope and its key fields. Combined with the rich parameter schema and annotations, the agent has enough to call the tool correctly. A minor gap is that the `meta` object's contents are not described, but that is not critical for invocation.

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 schema already documents query, limit, _apiKey, and locationId in detail. The description only reinforces the locationId requirement for v2 tokens, adding little meaning beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Search or list CRM contacts in a GoHighLevel/LeadConnector account.' It also explains the free-text query scope across name, email, or phone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling leadconnector_get_contact, so it stops short of a 5.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as leadconnector_get_contact or other leadconnector list tools. The auth prerequisite and locationId note are useful, but they are invocation requirements, not usage-selection guidance. No exclusions or 'use this when...' framing is present.

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