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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world access, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real operational context beyond that: a hard page cap of 50, the cursor-style continuation contract, and the underlying GET /api/v1/Contacts endpoint. It doesn't say anything about ordering defaults or what happens when include_deleted is combined with filters.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then paging, then filtering – a sensible order with short, dense sentences. Minor redundancy: the filter example and the next_skip-to-skip rule repeat what the schema already states verbatim.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned field categories and naming the next_skip pagination field, which is what an agent needs to iterate. It's close to complete for a read/list tool; it doesn't clarify default sort order or response envelope shape.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema with the same paging and OData examples. The description reinforces the paging contract and offers a realistic filter example, but adds no syntax or constraint detail the schema doesn't already carry; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List contacts (people)') and enumerates the fields returned (names, phones, emails, addresses, organization, team, tags, custom fields). This clearly separates it from the singular pobuca_get_contact and from pobuca_list_organizations without needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives concrete guidance for the common retrieval scenario ('To find recently changed contacts use $filter like "updatedat ge …"') and explains how to continue paging via next_skip. It lacks explicit exclusion language (e.g. 'use pobuca_get_contact when you already have an id'), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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