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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming it is a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide. The description adds minimal value in this dimension.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the API reference provides additional context without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single optional enum parameter, no output schema, read-only), the description is complete enough. It clearly states what the tool lists. The lack of output schema is acceptable for a standard list operation.

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 'list' is fully documented in the schema with enum descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which already explains the options ('all' or 'custom'). High schema coverage justifies a baseline of 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 clearly states the tool lists contact fields or custom properties, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('contact properties'). The inclusion of the API endpoint adds precision. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like loops_create_contact_property.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear from context, there is no guidance on when not to use it or what filtering is possible. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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