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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already conveys that the operation is a safe read, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds the REST endpoint and the notion of searching 'across selected fields,' which is a minor behavioral detail. It does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or any rate limits, but these are partially covered by the schema parameters (cursor) and annotations. This is similar to the calibration example where annotations cover safety and the description adds scoping context, resulting in a 3.

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?

The description is two sentences, totaling 16 words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose with a specific verb and resource. The second sentence provides a valuable REST endpoint reference. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details. This is an example of optimal conciseness.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description needs to provide enough context for correct usage. It states the tool searches persons by term, which implies the result is a list of matching persons. The readOnlyHint annotation reassures safety, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention that results are paginated (via cursor) or what the default result structure looks like. Given the completeness of the schema and annotations, this is adequate but has a small gap, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 already have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions 'term' and 'selected fields' which map to the 'term' and 'fields' parameters, but it adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not elevate it.

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 clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('persons (contacts)'), with the specific scope 'by term across selected fields.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_deals and search_organizations by explicitly naming 'persons' as the search target. The REST endpoint reference adds concrete validation.

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 context is implied rather than explicit: the description states 'Search persons by term,' which signals this tool is for finding specific persons when you have a search term. However, it does not mention alternatives like list_persons for listing all persons or search_items for a broader search, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling tool names in the context signal provide some orientation, but the description itself lacks explicit differentiation.

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