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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is handled. The description adds field-level content (email, name, dates, id) and the underlying endpoint, which is mild extra context but discloses nothing about pagination behavior or result limits.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the primary action and then the filter/search options. The trailing raw endpoint is slightly superfluous but harmless.

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 read-only, paginated list tool with no output schema. Safety and parameters are adequately covered by annotations and schema, but the description says nothing about return shape, pagination via next_page, or how it differs from the near-identical search sibling.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including enum values and defaults. The description repeats status values and adds 'search a column' but contributes no syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: lists contacts of a specific list, with named return fields. It does not differentiate itself from the close sibling benchmark_search_contacts, which likely overlaps on the search capability.

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?

Mentions filtering and searching but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with benchmark_search_contacts. Usage is implied by the single-list scoping requirement rather than stated.

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