crehq_company_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It does add useful context about data provenance ('compiled from public records and the brand's own disclosures'), but it does not disclose potential limitations such as data freshness, pagination, or whether the information is gated by purchases/dataset access. For a read-only lookup this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The second sentence is a concise, memorable use-case metaphor rather than fluff. Every word adds value, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation details.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the needed context: what contacts are included, the data source, and when to use it. It does not explain return format or possible empty results, but the simplicity of the tool and the schema make this sufficient. A score of 5 would require more detail on output shape or edge cases.

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 single parameter 'id' already has a schema description with 100% coverage, explicitly stating it comes from crehq_companies_search. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter format or how to resolve it, so it relies entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('real-estate decision-maker contacts for a brand'), then lists concrete role types (development, site-selection, franchising). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crehq_company_get or crehq_company_real_estate, which focus on other aspects of company data.

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 phrase 'The shortcut from which brand is expanding to who do I email' gives a clear scenario for when to use this tool. It implies the tool is for prospecting/outreach, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of full 5.

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