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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's lower bar is met by adding useful context: the record types returned and the projected fields (type, date, text, team member). It stops short of describing pagination behavior, result ordering, or empty-result handling.

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 compact sentences with the payload contents front-loaded and the API binding trailing. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple filtered-list tool with fully covered parameters, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description supplies the field-level return contents an agent would otherwise lack. Slight gap in not stating pagination/result-size behavior, though the schema largely covers it.

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 limit, offset, and constituent_id are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the constituent path binding via the endpoint string and adds no new parameter semantics, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource (contact reports: calls, emails, meetings) scoped to one constituent, and lists the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not explicitly contrast with the many sibling list tools (notes, gifts, memberships), but the resource noun is distinctive enough to separate it.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as lgl_list_constituent_notes or lgl_create_contact_report, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource name, so the agent must infer intent from the tool name alone.

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