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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the side effect: contacts are shared to corporate scope. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or rate limits, but the annotations carry much of the safety profile.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted text. The primary action is front-loaded and the side effect is clearly separated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover much of the behavioral profile. However, the tool still lacks parameter semantics and sibling differentiation for a sharing operation with a required contact_ids array, leaving notable gaps.

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?

The only parameter, contact_ids, has zero schema description coverage and the description provides no detail about its format, accepted values, or how contacts are identified. It only says 'selected personal contacts,' which does not fully compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 and resource: 'Share selected personal contacts' with corporate members. It implies the distinction from group-sharing by specifying personal contacts, but it does not explicitly name the sibling share-contact-groups tool.

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 intended context is implied: sharing personal contacts with corporate members. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus share-contact-groups, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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