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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context — and it adds essentially none beyond the HTTP endpoint (GET /v1/contacts). It says nothing about ordering, default filters, whether the list is scoped to the caller's tenant, or how paging results are returned.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded; nothing is buried. The trailing "API: GET /v1/contacts" is marginal value for an agent but is not verbose enough to be a real cost.

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?

The tool is a simple filtered list with a fully documented schema and a read-only annotation, and pagination is covered by the cursor parameter, so the essentials are present. What is missing is any statement of filtering semantics (e.g. how client_ids/status_ids/location_ids combine) and any mention of result shape, which for a tool with no output schema would be worth a sentence.

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%, and the schema documents every parameter including the cursor's origin (DataContext.Pagination.NextCursor) and the 1-200 page_size range. The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 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 and resource ("List client contacts") and disambiguates the resource by glossing it as "end users", which separates it from the sibling list_clients and get_user tools. It does not explicitly contrast with gorelo_get_contact (single-record fetch), but the verb alone makes the distinction legible.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative such as gorelo_get_contact for a single lookup or gorelo_list_clients for the parent entity. Usage is only inferable from the verb "List".

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