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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful details about paging limits (max 250 per call) and ordering support, but does not cover authentication, rate limits, or response metadata.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted text. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the supplementary API reference is brief.

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?

It identifies the fields returned by the tool and summarizes filter, paging, and ordering support, which is enough alongside the fully described input schema. It does not explain the response wrapper or pagination metadata, but no output schema exists to carry that detail.

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 schema already documents all five parameters in detail. The description only reiterates that filters, paging, and ordering are supported, without adding parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List contacts in Gripp') and identifies the returned contact fields. It distinguishes this tool from creation tools by name, though it does not explicitly contrast it with other list tools such as gripp_list_companies.

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?

It mentions supported capabilities like filters, paging, and ordering, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus gripp_get_record or other list tools. There are no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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