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

readOnlyHint already declares this a safe read, and the description adds real behavior beyond it: AND combination of criteria, partial-match name semantics, newest-first ordering, Trash exclusion by default, and the default-field-subset quirk with the fields escape hatch. Lacks only pagination/return-shape notes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then packs five distinct behavioral facts into compact sentences with no filler. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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 25-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond readOnly, the description covers the crucial defaults and field-selection behavior. It stops short of describing return shape or deep-paging implications, though the schema handles next/offset.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by documenting cross-parameter logic (AND combination, partial matches) and the fields mechanics ('allFields' / comma list) that the schema does not express.

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 (Search) and resource (contacts and leads) and clearly distinguishes the collection-search from the singular fub_get_person via the plural 'contacts and leads'. It does not, however, explicitly name sibling alternatives, keeping it 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?

Gives useful operating context (criteria combine with AND, name filters partial, default sort, Trash excluded unless includeTrash). But it never says when to prefer this over fub_get_person, fub_check_duplicate_person, or how it relates to sibling lookups.

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