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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the available filter axes but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or what happens when no filters are supplied.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the filter inventory. The trailing 'Teamleader: contacts.list' endpoint tag is meta-information of limited value to an agent.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description plus rich per-parameter schema documentation covers enough to call it correctly. Sort options and pagination defaults live in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 80%, so the schema already documents term, email, tags, company_id, status, and updated_since precisely. The description's filter list mirrors the schema without adding format, defaults, or combination semantics, so 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 and resource ('List or search contacts (people)') and disambiguates that contacts are people, not companies. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like teamleader_get_contact or teamleader_create_contact, so it stops short of a 5.

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 filtering sentence implies when to use it (bulk retrieval/filtering) and the 'search term' phrasing hints at lookup use, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. get_contact guidance or stated exclusions.

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