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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned card's contents, which is genuinely useful with no output schema, but says nothing about not-found behavior, workspace scoping, or data freshness.

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 sentences with zero filler; the what-you-get summary is front-loaded and the disambiguation clause follows immediately.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the one thing missing from structured data – the shape of the returned card. Only the contact_id semantics and a failure case remain unaddressed.

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 only 50%: workspace_id is documented in the schema, but contact_id has only a UUID pattern and no explanation. The description says "One client" without clarifying that contact_id identifies it, so it does not compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 the resource precisely ("One client") and enumerates what comes back: name, phones, channels, deals, tags. It is clearly distinguishable from dosai_get_contact_timeline, though the verb is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to dosai_get_contact_timeline when event history is needed, which is the main confusion risk among nearby siblings. It offers no guidance on when to prefer dosai_list_contacts over this tool, but the primary alternative is named.

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