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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: newest-first ordering, row-level fields like origin, wantEmail/wantPhone, creditsReserved, creditsCharged, result summary, and errorCode. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but the safe, idempotent nature is well covered by annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the action, resource, ordering, and optional filter, then lists the useful row fields, then gives usage context and the sibling alternative. Each sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of obvious 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the key row fields and explaining the charge-audit use case. It does not describe the exact response envelope or pagination behavior, but for a straightforward filtered list with fully documented optional parameters, this is nearly complete.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description: limit default/max, status enum, and workspaceId default. The description restates the statuses and mentions filtering, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action and resource: 'List the workspace's built-in Contact Finder requests, newest first, optionally filtered by status.' It also clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling campaignstack_get_contact_finder_request by positioning that tool as the one for a single id.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: 'Use it to see what is in flight or to audit what the finder charged.' It also names the alternative tool for one-id lookups, giving an agent direct routing guidance between the list and get variants.

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