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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the no-search_terms fallback behavior and pagination, plus the return shape { HasMoreResults, Results }. Since there is no output schema, disclosing the return envelope is genuinely useful context 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary behavior precedes the return-shape detail. The trailing 'LACRM: GetContacts.' mapping is minor but harmless.

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 search tool with a fully documented schema but no output schema, the description covers the important gaps: dual search/list mode, pagination, and return envelope. It is close to complete, lacking only alternative-routing guidance.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only references search_terms implicitly and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; 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 pair (search/list) and resource (contacts and companies), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like lacrm_list_contacts_in_group or lacrm_get_contact, which prevents a 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?

It clarifies the dual mode ('with no search_terms, returns everything visible, paged'), which implicitly tells the agent it can be used as a listing tool. However, it never states when to prefer it over the sibling get/list tools or any exclusions.

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