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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the description adds real value: exactly one page is returned, paging totals are supplied, and hidden or deleted contacts are filtered out. The raw endpoint is included, which helps confirm the underlying behavior, though nothing is said about auth or rate constraints.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope, then filtering behavior. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 eight parameters, no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description should explain at least the filter fields and paging semantics. It covers the population scope and pagination limit but leaves half the call contract undocumented.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only implicitly names the enum values ('customer, delivery-address and supplier'). The name, email, company, telephone, company_id, page and rows filters are never explained, leaving an agent to guess at matching 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read or search ... contacts') and names the three contact categories that map to the `list` enum. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_products or search_jobs, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with an alternative.

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?

'Read or search' implies the tool supports both browsing and filtered lookup, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus anything else, nor any exclusion conditions. The usage mode is inferable rather than stated.

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