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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data; the description re-states read semantics via the GET endpoint but adds nothing new. It does not say what a contact record contains, whether results can be empty, or if pagination applies.

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, front-loaded fragments with no wasted words. The only weakness is that the first fragment is incomplete as a sentence, but the brevity is appropriate for a simple single-parameter read tool.

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 list tool with one required parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is still too thin: it never says what contacts are returned or whether the list is paged, and with no output schema the agent has no other source for return shape.

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 burden. It does clarify that the single id refers to a customer and appears in the URL path, but it omits any detail on expected format, validation, or error behavior for invalid ids.

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 identifies the resource (a customer's contact people) but is a noun fragment rather than stating the verb 'list'; the retrieval semantics only come from the appended 'GET /sales/customers/{id}/contacts' endpoint. It does distinguish this tool from siblings like laudus_get_customer or laudus_list_customers by naming contacts specifically, but the purpose is left partly implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related ones (e.g., getting the customer record itself), nor any prerequisites such as needing a valid customer_id. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and endpoint.

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