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 genuinely non-structural context: the fallback listing behavior when search_terms is omitted and the returned shape { HasMoreResults, Results }, which tells the agent how pagination terminates.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then the no-filter behavior, then the return shape and API mapping. No filler; the API-operation tag is compact and potentially useful for doc cross-referencing.

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 nine fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supply side is adequate: it names the return envelope and pagination semantics. It is slightly thin on how results interact with the many filter parameters (owner_user_ids, requires_write_access, advanced_filters), but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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 is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal meaning (search_terms is optional and its absence triggers a full listing); it does not clarify sort, filters, or the advanced_filters structure beyond the schema.

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 (search/list) and resource (contacts and companies), plus the API operation mapping (LACRM: GetContacts). However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings such as lacrm_get_contact or lacrm_list_contacts_in_group, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 description does convey an important usage rule: with no search_terms it returns everything visible, paged, making the tool act as a lister. But it offers no when-to-use guidance against alternatives (e.g. get_contact for a single record, list_contacts_in_group for group-scoped listing), leaving selection to inference.

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