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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the underlying GET endpoint and the scoping constraint — no pagination, ordering, or result-shape context that would help an agent reason about large result sets.

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 sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The trailing endpoint path is slightly redundant with the purpose sentence but does no harm.

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 annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The main residual gap is result-set behavior (pagination, ordering, volume), which an agent calling a property-scoped list would want.

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 name the filterable fields (name/email, matching first_name/last_name/email) which the bare schema does not explain. However, it does not clarify that property_id is a required path identifier, nor distinguish first_name from last_name or give any format/syntax guidance.

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 and resource ('List contacts associated with a property') and adds the optional filter scope plus the REST path, which makes the resource unambiguous. It implicitly differs from the sibling list_contacts by property scoping, but never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

'Optionally filtered by name/email' implies when the filters apply, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer list_contacts instead, and no prerequisites or paging caveats.

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