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 useful context beyond that: fixed page size of 25, the next_page continuation mechanism, and the fact that results are view-scoped rather than account-wide. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

One dense, front-loaded paragraph that opens with the core verb+resource and ends with the endpoint. Every clause carries information, though the returned-field list and parentheticals make it slightly run-on compared to a tighter phrasing.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the fields returned and describing pagination, which is the key missing structured information. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether total page counts or cursors are returned alongside the records.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description contributes real meaning: it explains where view_id comes from, that pagination is 25-per-page, and that next_page should be followed. Sort and sort_type are left entirely to the schema, but their semantics are self-evident from the enums.

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 contacts) scoped to a view, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling freshsales_list_contact_views by naming it as the source of view_id. It also enumerates returned fields and the underlying endpoint, so an agent can identify exactly what this does versus freshsales_get_contact or freshsales_search.

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 a concrete prerequisite ('get view_id from freshsales_list_contact_views') and pagination follow-up ('use next_page'), which tells the agent how to chain calls. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over search/lookup for contact retrieval, so there is no explicit exclusion guidance.

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