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 genuinely useful context beyond that: page size of 30 per call, default name-sorted order, and the exact endpoint GET /v3/contacts. It omits any note on total counts or rate limits, so it is not a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the entity clarification, page size, default ordering, optional filter and endpoint in that order. No filler, nothing that fails to earn 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 read-only paginated list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the key calling facts (page size, offset-based paging, default sort, filter) are present. The lack of any hint about the returned record shape or how to detect the last page is a minor residual gap given there is no output 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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the enums for order_by and order_type. The description only restates the default sort and the company filter, adding no new syntax or format meaning; 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+resource ('List contacts') and disambiguates the entity with '(customers/requesters)', which an agent can map to tickets/requesters. It never names the sibling it is distinguished from (desk365_get_contact), so it stops short of full sibling-level differentiation.

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 implies bulk/paged retrieval with an optional single-company filter, which is enough to suggest when to use it over desk365_get_contact. It never states when NOT to use it or points to an alternative tool.

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