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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context by specifying 'custom contact-property definitions' and workspace scope, plus the API endpoint. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or return format beyond what the schema implies, so it provides only modest additional transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. It efficiently states what the tool does and provides the API endpoint for reference.

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 simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the intent and scope. It could mention that results are paginated or list field details, but the schema already covers this, and the description's brevity is acceptable for the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters (limit, starting_after) have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when schemas fully document parameters.

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 tool lists custom contact-property definitions (schema) for the workspace, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by specifying 'contact-property definitions' rather than contacts or messages.

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?

The description implies usage by naming the resource and API endpoint, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or prerequisites. There are no direct sibling tools for contact properties, so the lack of exclusions is acceptable, but it does not explain use cases like retrieving available properties before creating contacts.

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