A contact's documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each entry carries a status, which is mildly useful context, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or what happens when the contact matches nothing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slightly awkward phrasing ('a company in its title') mirrors the schema language but reads a bit cryptically on its own.

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 spelled out, and the sole parameter is fully documented at 100% coverage. For a one-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema's 'who' description already gives the person/email/company-in-title meaning plus an example. The description restates the same accepted forms rather than adding new syntax or matching rules, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 names the resource (documents) and the scope (everything a given person or company is part of), and adds that per-document status is returned. That is enough to distinguish it from get_document (single document), though it does not explicitly name find_documents as the alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: the caller should use this when they have a contact identity and want that contact's documents. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to the sibling tools that overlap (find_documents, get_document).

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