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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile. The description adds useful context by disclosing the returned fields (name, type, email, address, phones, related patient/invoice/case ids), but it omits pagination behavior, default ordering/limits, and how filters are applied. It is consistent with annotations.

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 tight sentences. The contact subtypes and returned fields are front-loaded and every element earns its place; the trailing 'GET /contacts' is minimal but harmless.

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 usefully enumerates the return fields, and the schema fully covers all nine optional parameters. Remaining gaps (pagination defaults, ordering, page size) are handled or implied by the schema's id_gt/id_lt documentation, so the description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 all nine filters (email, firstname, lastname, phoneNumber, id_gt/id_lt, update_gt/update_lt, include_archived) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (contacts) and enumerates the subtypes (GPs, plan managers, referrers, invoice recipients) plus the fields returned. The list-vs-get distinction against siblings like splose_get_contact is obvious from the name/title, so no explicit sibling callout is needed.

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?

Provides no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance: nothing says when to use this rather than splose_get_contact for a single record or how to leverage filters. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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