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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint: true and a title, so the description usefully adds the WRITE classification and the key non-idempotency behavior (each call creates a duplicate). It is consistent with the annotation rather than contradicting it, but it does not mention permission requirements or what the response contains.

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, front-loaded with the WRITE marker so an agent sees the mutation risk immediately, with the duplicate caveat next. Nothing is redundant.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema and no return value documentation, the description should state what comes back (e.g. the new contact id) so the agent knows whether the response can be chained. It covers the operation and its duplicate risk but leaves the result shape unexplained.

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 all six parameters are already documented, including the cross-reference from company to gripp_list_companies. The description adds only that the contact is attached to a company, which is baseline-level value; 3 is the correct ceiling when the schema carries the semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource — create a contact person on a company — and adds the underlying API operation (contact.create). It is unmistakable from the list_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative for cases where a contact already exists.

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?

"Creates a new contact each call; a repeat creates a duplicate" gives a clear usage condition and implicitly warns the agent to check existing contacts first. It stops short of naming the alternative (e.g. gripp_list_contacts) or stating prerequisites beyond the company id reference.

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