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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the underlying endpoint (GET /contacts/); it says nothing about default result ordering, whether a total count is returned, or what happens when filters match nothing.

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 the verb and resource, followed by the searchable fields and an example. No filler, though the trailing 'GET /contacts/' is marginally useful for an agent that already has the tool bound.

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?

All four parameters are optional and fully described in the schema, and annotations cover read-only safety, so the description does not need to carry much more. The main residual gap is the absence of any statement about the response shape (no output schema exists) or pagination follow-through.

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 sort, limit, start, and the nested filter object are all documented. The description adds one concrete example ('first_name contains Eric') that illustrates the filter operator pattern, but adds no new constraint or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('List or search contacts') and enumerates the searchable surface (name, email/phone channels, company). It is clearly the plural counterpart to the get_contact sibling, though it never explicitly contrasts with it or with list_companies.

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?

Usage is implied: 'List or search' plus a filter example signals when to use it. But there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over cogmento_get_contact for a known ID, or how it relates to list_companies for cross-object queries.

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