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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result (id, campaign, status, outreach state) and the set of outreach state values, which no structured field provides since there is no output schema.

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 search scope and followed by the return shape; almost every clause carries information. The searchable-field list slightly duplicates the query parameter description, which is the only waste.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the filter surface and the return fields, while annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly 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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents limit, offset, query, status, campaign_id and include_removed. The description adds the enumeration of outreach states returned (active, paused, excluded, not_interested, removed), which is not present in any parameter description and clarifies what the status/removed filters ultimately surface.

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 ('Find contacts across your campaigns') and enumerates the searchable fields (name, company, job title, LinkedIn URL), so the agent knows exactly what this retrieval does. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (get_contact for a single contact), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'optionally within one campaign or one status' implies when to apply the campaign_id/status filters, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as get_contact or list_campaigns. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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