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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context by stating default ordering (newest first) and the response envelope {count, results}. It stops short of describing pagination limits or filter failure behavior, but adds meaningful value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core action and scope, then appends the filter capability, return shape, and backing endpoint with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return shape and a nested-object filter isn't explained, but the schema's 100% coverage and rich examples carry that load. For a read-only list tool, this is nearly complete, missing only rate/pagination caveats already present in the schema.

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 every parameter (from, size, filter, sort_field, sort_direction) is already documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description only reinforces the filter style and default sort, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema — baseline 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 (List) and resource (contacts) plus the record types covered (customers, leads, adjusters, subcontractors), and notes default ordering. It does not name the sibling it should be chosen over (jobnimbus_get_contact) for single-record lookups, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Mentions that filtering is optional and uses an ElasticSearch-style query, which implies how to narrow results, but gives no when-to-use guidance (e.g., use get_contact when a single jnid is known) or exclusions. Usage 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.