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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by enumerating which fields `search` matches against (name, email, phone, specialty and numbers), but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering, which matter for a paged list.

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 sentences, no filler, with the resource definition front-loaded and the search behavior immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the returned record shape is left implicit, and pagination defaults live only in the schema. For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage, the description plus schema are nearly sufficient; a note on what a contact record contains would close the remaining 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 the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by specifying the search fields that 'Free-text search.' does not convey. It still does not clarify whether is_payor and is_doctor are mutually exclusive or whether they can be combined with search.

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 names the resource and defines what a contact is in this domain (referring doctors, insurers and other payors), which distinguishes it from semble_list_patients and semble_list_users. It does not itself state the verb 'list', relying on the tool name to carry that, but the resource definition is specific and unambiguous.

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 implied: fetch contacts, optionally narrowing by free-text search or by the is_payor/is_doctor flags. There is no sibling that performs the same listing, so no routing guidance is strictly needed, but the description never states when to prefer search over the boolean filters or how they combine.

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