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

The annotation destructiveHint: true contradicts the description 'Create a contact', as creating a contact is not a destructive operation. The description provides no additional behavioral context and actually conflicts with the annotation, so it scores 1.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Create a contact' immediately conveys the action and target. The additional REST endpoint reference is useful and non-redundant. No fluff or wasted words.

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?

With 12 parameters and no output schema, this minimal description leaves out important context such as response format, side effects, or prerequisites. The contradictory destructiveHint annotation adds confusion, and the description does not compensate for the lack of structural clarity.

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 the input schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, except highlighting name as required, which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states 'Create a contact' — a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_company and create_ticket. It also cites the REST endpoint, reinforcing the action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_contact for existing contacts. The mention of 'name required' and the REST endpoint are parameter/implementation details, not usage context.

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