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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden. It discloses nothing about authentication requirements, duplicate-email behavior, rate limits, or what the creation returns, and the REST endpoint reference adds no behavioral information an agent can act on.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the verb+resource leads. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, so it earns good marks for structure without reaching the top of the scale.

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 need not explain return values, and the schema fully covers the three parameters. However, for a mutating create tool with only a single destructiveHint annotation, it omits duplicate handling and any indication of success/failure behavior, leaving a noticeable gap.

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 name, email, and the arbitrary custom-attribute 'data' object are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a new contact') and clarifies the entity as the customer record via '(customer)', which separates it from conversation/article tools. It does not name the sibling operations it differs from (get_contact, list_contacts, update_contact), though 'new' implicitly excludes them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reamaze_update_contact, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g. whether the contact must be unique by email, or what happens if it already exists). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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