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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds that matching is full-or-partial across name/email/phone/address and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, contact type, email, phone, address). It omits any note on rate limits or result caps beyond what the schema states, but adds real context beyond the 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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and match semantics, followed by return fields. No filler and nothing buried.

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, listing the returned fields is essential and it is done; pagination is adequately covered by the schema's skip/take descriptions. The only real gap is routing guidance against sibling search tools, which the description never addresses.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what the required 'search' string is matched against (name, email, phone, address, fully or partially) – meaning the schema's bare 'Text to match' does not convey. That is genuine added value.

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 (Find) and resource (contacts) plus the fields searched, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related siblings virtuous_find_contact or virtuous_search, leaving the agent to guess which entry point applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite three plausible siblings (find_contact, search, query). The agent gets a capability statement but no selection criteria.

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