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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that results are contacts with an email address on a connection, plus the underlying API route, but says nothing about result volume, pagination or ordering beyond what the schema declares.

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 action and resource, with the API route as a trailing implementation note. The route reference earns little for an agent but adds negligible length.

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 read-only, single-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage, the definition covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. With no output schema, the shape of returned contacts is left implicit, which is the main remaining gap.

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%, including the hash_key clarification and the per_page enum values, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes that listing is per-connection and adds no new meaning about page, order or per_page behavior.

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 the contacts ... of a connection") and clarifies what a contact is ("people with an email address for sending statements"), which distinguishes it from hiveage_list_connections and hiveage_get_contact. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it does not reach 5.

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 phrase "of a connection" implies the tool is scoped to a single connection and requires its hash_key, and the sibling get_contact implies a different retrieval path for a single record. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so usage must be inferred.

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