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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond these: that the workspace is shared across AIsa callers so results include contacts other callers created. This concretizes the abstract openWorldHint into a practical behavioral implication. It could go further on pagination behavior, but the shared-workspace caveat is strong added value.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler: purpose and filters first, then return shape, then the shared-workspace caveat and the alternative tool. Each sentence earns its place and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 a full output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, filters, pagination, return fields, the shared-workspace caveat, and the alternative for non-saved people. Nothing an agent needs to 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 baseline is 3. The description lists filter dimensions (name, title, account, owner, stage, custom fields) and pagination params, but these largely restate what the schema already documents for each property. It doesn't add syntax, value formats, or usage nuances beyond the schema, so the baseline is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('contacts — the people saved in this Apollo workspace') and enumerates the filterable fields (name, title, account, owner, stage, custom fields). It distinguishes itself from the sibling post_apollo_mixed_people_api_search by explicitly scoping to saved workspace contacts.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('To find people who are not saved here, use post_apollo_mixed_people_api_search') and warns that the shared workspace means results include contacts created by other callers. This routes the agent away from the wrong sibling without ambiguity.

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