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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive write confined to the workspace, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint — every consent must be explicitly supplied and justified — which is not in the schema. It does not disclose what happens on partial failure, duplicates, or validation errors, so it adds context but not a full picture.

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?

Two short sentences that lead with the operation and cap, with zero filler. The '1000' limit merely restates the schema's maxItems, a minor redundancy, but it costs little.

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 write tool taking an untyped array of arbitrary objects with no output schema, the description should define row structure and error behavior. It supplies only the consent rule and the item cap, which is not enough for an agent to construct a valid payload or predict outcomes.

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 0% for the single `rows` parameter, which is typed only as an array of free-form objects with no item properties documented. The description mentions that consent fields are required per row, which is the only hint about row shape; it says nothing about the other contact fields, formats, or accepted keys, leaving the payload largely opaque.

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 names a specific verb (importer) and resource (contacts) and states a batch ceiling, so the basic operation is clear. However, it gives no differentiation from near-identical siblings such as bulk_contacts, import_prospects, or import_collection_rows, which an agent must choose between.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites are stated apart from a consent rule. Nothing tells the agent when this should be preferred over bulk_contacts or import_prospects.

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