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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it is a GET endpoint and naming the returned fields, though it does not describe pagination or response envelope details.

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 short and front-loads the purpose, contact types, and returned fields. The search-matching sentence is useful, though the trailing endpoint reference is marginal but not harmful.

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?

Given 8 optional parameters, high schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description is reasonably complete for a list tool. It names returned fields and search behavior, while pagination and status defaults are handled by the schema; only alternative-tool guidance is notably absent.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters thoroughly, including enums and pagination. The description repeats the search-matching fields but adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: list contacts, with the contact types and key return fields named. It is clearly different from create/get/archive tools by being a list operation, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or differentiate from list_contact_groups beyond the resource name.

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 says what the tool lists and how search matches fields, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus bukku_get_contact or bukku_list_contact_groups. There are no exclusions or selection criteria, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name.

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