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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/contatos) and frames the tool as a discovery entry point, but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or empty-result handling beyond what the schema states.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core resource definition front-loaded before the usage hint and the endpoint reference. Nothing here is redundant with structured fields in a wasteful way.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, entry-point role, and data source. It could say slightly more about what a result row contains (codes and names) but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 (page, tipo, fields, filtro, orderBy) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail for any of them; the reference to 'finding a contact code' only loosely gestures at the filtro parameter.

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 ('List') and resource (contacts), then enumerates the domain subtypes it covers (customers, suppliers, carriers). An agent can distinguish it from egestor_get_contact (single record) by the verb alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Good first call to find a contact code' gives concrete sequencing guidance — use this to discover codes, then presumably follow up with egestor_get_contact. It stops short of naming that alternative or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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