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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It alludes to authorization and validation equivalence but names no required scopes, permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior, and never states that this is a read-only listing operation.

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 no padding, but the first merely echoes the identifier and the second is only marginally informative, so the size reflects under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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?

A three-parameter listing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needs the description to cover pagination, filters, and return shape; none of these appear. The definition is far too thin for what an agent must know to call it correctly.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate for limit, cursor and workspaceId — and it adds nothing at all about any of them. The schema's own defaults (limit 50, max 100) and cursor UUID format carry all available meaning.

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?

"SAGOT contacts.list" is essentially the tool name restated in dotted-path form; the description never says in prose that it lists contacts, what is returned, or what scope it covers. No differentiation from siblings like contacts_history, contacts_export or contacts_import, which all touch the same resource.

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 only guidance is "Uses the same authorization and validation as website, API and CLI," which speaks to auth parity, not to when this tool should be chosen over contacts_history, contacts_export, or contacts_update. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is given.

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