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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations cannot: that matching is substring-based ("partial matches") on name, mobile and email, which changes how an agent should interpret result sets and filter values. It omits pagination behavior and result shape, keeping it below a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the operation and filter semantics, plus a short endpoint reference. Nothing is padded, though the GET /v1/... path largely restates what the readOnly annotation and schema already convey, so it earns slightly less than full marks.

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 7 optional params, 100% schema coverage and annotations present, the core is covered. But the description never mentions that results are paginated and that next_offset from the reply should feed the offset parameter (the schema references next_offset that is never defined here), nor what a contact record contains — a meaningful gap for a list tool with no output schema.

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 every parameter (tags, email, limit, offset, first_name, last_name, mobile) is already documented with defaults and ranges. The description only gestures at the same fields ("name, mobile or email; filter by tag") without adding syntax, combination semantics or matching rules beyond the partial-match note. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 or search contacts") and clarifies that matching is partial on name, mobile or email and that tag filtering is supported. This separates it from sakari_get_contact and sakari_create_contact by implication, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "search" plus the filter parameters suggest this is the tool for browsing/finding contacts without an ID. It never states when to prefer sakari_get_contact (known ID) or when to use sakari_create_contact, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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