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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description need not restate it. The description adds the underlying REST endpoint (GET /api/v2/persons/search), which is mild but genuine context; however it says nothing about result caps, pagination behavior, or how cursor-based traversal works, all of which matter for a search tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant filler. The trailing REST-endpoint sentence is low-value for tool selection but harmless and compact.

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 readOnlyHint covering safety and a fully documented six-parameter schema, most of what an agent needs is present. The gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not describe the return shape or pagination semantics, and it does not position the tool against the similarly named list_persons sibling.

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 six parameters (term, limit, cursor, fields, exact_match, organization_id) are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'across selected fields' loosely maps to the fields parameter but adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search persons (contacts) by term across selected fields'), and adds the useful synonym 'contacts' plus the search scope (selected fields). It never distinguishes this from the closely-named sibling pipedrive_list_persons or from pipedrive_search_items, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by term' — an agent can infer this is for term-based lookup rather than enumeration — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. list_persons for browsing, search_items for a cross-entity search). The guidance is inferable, not stated.

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