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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the raw endpoint (GET /Contact/) and the returned field set, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result limits beyond what the schema already conveys via page/next_page.

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, front-loaded with the action and the payload, with no redundant filler. The trailing "GET /Contact/" is slightly low-value for an agent but does not bloat the definition.

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 five optional params, no output schema, and no required inputs, the description usefully compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields. Nothing critical for a correct invocation is missing, though pagination handling could be noted.

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 page, search, order_by, page_size, and sort_order are all already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 contact lists") and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, description, contact count, dates), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling benchmark_get_list, but the plural/listing framing makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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?

"Use the ids with the contact tools" is follow-up guidance rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over benchmark_get_list, benchmark_list_segments, or benchmark_search_contacts, leaving the agent to infer the listing intent.

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