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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile. The description adds a useful auth scope requirement and mentions paging, but it does not add deeper behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted text, and the key resource clarification is front-loaded. It is concise, though arguably too terse to be maximally helpful.

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?

Given six optional parameters and a fully documented schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, for a list tool with search and company-contact siblings, it should at least signal when this is the right listing operation rather than another.

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 the parameters are already well documented, including pagination, field selection, embedding, sorting, and limits. The description adds only "with paging" and no additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 ("List contacts") and clarifies that contacts are people at companies. It does not distinguish this from close siblings such as sellsy_search_contacts or sellsy_list_company_contacts, so it falls short of full purpose clarity.

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 only usage guidance is the prerequisite "Needs contacts.read." It does not say when to use this list operation instead of sellsy_search_contacts, sellsy_list_company_contacts, or sellsy_get_contact, nor does it describe exclusions.

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