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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: cursor paging (hasMore/paginationToken) and totalCount inclusion, which tells the agent how to iterate results. It stops short of describing rate limits, sort order, or truncation behavior.

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-loaded with the resource and its contents, then pagination, then the alternative tool. Sentences are dense and every clause carries information; the trailing 'GET /contacts' is a minor but harmless endpoint anchor.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, dob, phones, emails, tags, custom fields, integration links) and the paging envelope (hasMore/paginationToken, totalCount). An agent has enough to call and iterate correctly.

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% and both parameters are well documented in the schema itself, including the page_size truncation caveat. The description mentions paging but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already 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 verb+resource (list contacts) and disambiguates the scope by naming the three contact categories (patients, professionals, clinics) plus the fields returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative (sprucehealth_search_contacts) with the condition that selects it ('to find someone'), implying this tool is for browsing/enumerating the whole organization. Clear routing context, though it does not state a hard exclusion or the direct 'use this when...' framing.

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