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

Annotations already establish this is a non-destructive, open-world read. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: matching is case-insensitive substring, results are ordered newest first, and it is a GET /contacts endpoint. It does not discuss pagination behavior or result size, which is the remaining gap.

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 compact sentences with zero filler: returned fields first, then filter semantics, sort order, and endpoint. Everything is front-loaded and each clause earns its place.

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 filter-and-list tool with no output schema, the description covers returned fields, filter semantics, ordering, and the underlying route — enough to call it correctly. Only pagination behavior and whether a total count is returned are left implicit in the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds that the name/email/company filters are case-insensitive 'contains' matches, resolving which of the listed fields are actually searchable versus merely returned. limit/offset are left entirely to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (List contacts) and enumerates the fields returned (name, email, phone, company, address, language, notes), which clearly separates it from bookingmood_get_contact or create_contact. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Explains how search works (name, email, or company; case-insensitive; contains) which implies when to use it, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus get_contact or when a filter is preferable over listing everything. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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