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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a personal-data caution and the underlying endpoint; it says nothing about pagination or the sensitivity of returned records beyond that.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with purpose before the privacy note and endpoint. The API path is marginal value but does not bloat the text.

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 read-only 7-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and privacy adequately. It leaves the return shape and pagination implicit, which the schema partly supplies.

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 every parameter (q, page, status, tag_ids, order_by, per_page, site_ids) is already documented. The description's parenthetical field list maps loosely to the filter parameters but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 pair (search/list) and resource (adult contacts in the Address Book), and enumerates the fields it exposes (name, contact details, address, sites, status, tags). The 'adult' qualifier usefully distinguishes it from list_children, though it does not name get_contact as the alternative for single-record fetches.

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?

Implies usage ('search or list') and adds a privacy directive ('ask only for what you need'), but does not state when to prefer this over churchsuite_get_contact for a single record or how it differs from sibling list tools such as list_contact_tags.

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