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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description contributes a genuinely non-annotation detail (master API key required) plus cost-per-request. It does not mention pagination limits or result caps, which would be the next useful disclosure.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the capability statement comes before the auth requirement. The injected pricing comment block adds markup noise, but the prose itself is tight.

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 an output schema present and 100% param coverage, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly flags the auth prerequisite. The remaining gap is that a search tool with no obvious query parameter is not clarified, which could confuse an agent about what the tool actually filters on.

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 four parameters are already documented and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and notably does not explain what is searched on when no query/filter parameter exists.

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 clear verb+resource ('Search tasks'), which correctly identifies the read/search counterpart to the write siblings post_apollo_tasks and post_apollo_tasks_bulk_create. It does not, however, name any sibling or differentiate itself from the other Apollo search endpoints (contacts/accounts/opportunities), so it stops short of full sibling routing.

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 only guidance is a prerequisite ('Requires a master API key'); there is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Given a large family of *_search siblings, an agent gets nothing to decide between them.

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