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 backing endpoint paths, which hints that contact_tags and property_tags are served by a shared /groups resource, but says nothing about auth, caching or rate limits, so it adds only modest behavior context.

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 sentences, no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the enum glosses and endpoints. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 single-enum lookup tool there is little to explain, and the kind-to-endpoint mapping is complete. However, with no output schema the description never indicates the return shape (e.g. id/name pairs) an agent must parse to actually reuse the ids elsewhere.

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% and the enum is self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by glossing domain terms — activity_types as note/task/appointment types, reservation_reasons as rejection reasons — which is real semantic value for picking the right enum value.

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+resource ('Look up the ids used by other tools') and enumerates the exact reference lists returned. An agent can immediately separate this lookup tool from the CRUD/list siblings such as propstack_list_contacts or propstack_list_deal_pipelines.

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?

It tells the agent why to call it — to resolve ids consumed by other tools — and gives a concrete example ('activity_types ... needed as note_type_id'). There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for tag lookups, so it falls short of 5.

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