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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds real context beyond that: the shape of each returned record, the warning that large services have hundreds of fields, and the endpoint backing it. It does not mention pagination or response size limits, which matters given the stated field volume.

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-loads the return contents, then the when-to-call rule, then the sorting caveat. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information; the trailing endpoint paths are the least valuable, though still useful for debugging.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so — field names, labels, types, and enum values are all covered. Combined with the match-filter guidance, nothing material is missing for a read-only discovery tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining why include_order_by exists — order_by fields come from a separate model and their names can differ (name_last vs contact.name_last) — which is the key disambiguation an agent needs before passing that flag.

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 (list search field names a service accepts in criteria) and enumerates what each entry carries: label, type, enum value list. It also explicitly distinguishes this from the separate sortable-field list used by order_by, so it is not confused with that narrower resource.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Call this before building criteria on a field you are not sure of,' plus the conditional 'set include_order_by' path for sorting. It does not name a sibling as the alternative for either case (e.g. what to call instead when you already know the fields), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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