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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world read. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the returned fields (name, email, total responses, last response date, projects) and the id-chaining workflow. It does not mention pagination limits or whether results are sorted, but the safety profile is fully covered by 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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: scope, return shape, then usage/routing. Front-loaded with the core action. Slightly dense with parenthetical ids, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description briefly summarizing them is a harmless aid. Combined with explicit sibling routing and param guidance, an agent has what it needs; only pagination/sort behavior is unstated, which is minor.

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, but the description adds semantic intent beyond the schema: `search` is framed as 'find a person by name/email' and `projectIds` as 'find who responded to given projects', clarifying the purpose rather than just the type. It does not restate the limit bounds, but the schema handles that.

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/respondents) plus the optional scoping dimension (responded to specific projects). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like contact_detail (single contact) and responses_search (response-level lookup).

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 names the two access paths: `projectIds` to find who responded to given projects, and `search` to find a person by name/email. It also routes the agent forward, telling it to pass a returned contact id to contact_detail or responses_search (contactId).

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