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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that contacts are respondents and enumerates returned fields, but it stays silent on pagination behavior and auth scope; with an output schema present, the field list is largely redundant.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, then returns, then parameter routing; each earns its place. The returned-field enumeration mildly overlaps the output schema but remains readable.

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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema for return values, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, scope, parameter intent, and downstream id usage. No material gaps remain.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's projectIds and search notes restate rather than extend the schema semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the organization's contacts") plus the scope (optionally limited to project respondents), and equates contacts with respondents. This clearly separates it from contact_detail (single contact) and responses_search (response-level), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use projectIds (find who responded to projects) versus search (find a person by name/email), and points the returned id downstream to contact_detail or responses_search(contactId). No explicit when-not-to-use or preference ordering against list-oriented siblings like recent_responses.

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