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

Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'Add a new contact', such as side effects, required permissions, or behavior when the company context is missing, but it does not contradict the 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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It places the verb and object first, making the tool's purpose immediately scannable.

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 tool with seven parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic intent but leaves ambiguity around what 'current company' means and whether a company context must already exist. The 100% schema coverage and output schema reduce the burden, so the description is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all seven parameters, so the structured data fully documents each field. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the general sense of 'new contact', which is acceptable under the baseline given high schema coverage.

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 ('Add a new contact') plus a scope ('to the current company'), which clearly conveys the tool's core action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like droptrack_add_contacts_to_list and droptrack_create_contact_list by focusing on a single contact added to a company, though 'current company' is not precisely defined.

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 description gives minimal context ('current company') but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as droptrack_add_contacts_to_list or droptrack_create_contact_list. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision rules, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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