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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are paged and the underlying endpoint, with no mention of result ordering, matching semantics, or empty-result behavior.

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 purpose. The raw endpoint string is of marginal use to an agent and is arguably unnecessary filler, but the definition is otherwise waste-free.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could reasonably say what a result contains (contact fields, next_page handling) — it only hints at paging. Adequate to invoke correctly, but thin for an agent deciding how to interpret results.

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%, documenting query, page and per_page fully, so baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond echoing the 'query' parameter name in the endpoint string, and certainly no syntax guidance for the free-text term.

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 ('Free-text search over client contacts') plus the paging behavior, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_contacts / filter-style tools. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'search' implies it is for text queries rather than full listing, but the description never states when to use this over cats_list_contacts or what happens with unmatched terms. No exclusions or alternative routing is given.

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