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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that results can be filtered by contact kind/nationality, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default ordering, or result shape beyond what the schema provides.

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 compact sentences with zero waste; the core purpose is front-loaded before the filter capabilities. Every clause earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter, all-optional read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and filtering adequately and annotations cover safety. Minor gaps remain around sort-field values and pagination semantics, but nothing critical is missing.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including enums, ranges and defaults. The description only restates the filter fields at a high level and adds no format or interaction details, making baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List contacts') and clarifies the domain object ('clients and suppliers') of the Quipu account. An agent can distinguish it from quipu_get_contact and quipu_create_contact by the list/read scope, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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?

The filter sentence implies how to narrow results (kind, tax id, country, email, free text), which gives implicit usage guidance. However, it never says when to use this versus quipu_get_contact for a single record, nor when to combine filters.

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