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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, which is useful context, but it says nothing about volume, auth needs, or the fact that results are hard-capped with no true paging.

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 lines with no filler, and the field enumeration is front-loaded. The trailing 'GET /v1/contacts/retrieve' restates the endpoint rather than adding agent-relevant information, so it is slightly wasteful 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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no excessive parameter complexity or output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. Only the missing distinction from oksign_list_users keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

With two parameters at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains limit (1-500, default 100) and offset (with the next_offset hint). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the resource (the account's contact list) and enumerates the fields returned (name, email, mobile, actingas/capacity, group), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not distinguish itself from the similar-sounding sibling oksign_list_users, which a reader could easily confuse it with.

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 call this versus alternatives such as oksign_list_users or oksign_get_linked_document, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The verb 'list' is only implied by the title; the description itself gives no situational guidance.

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