List saved contacts or search contacts by name, phone, or email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search query matching phone, name, or email | |
| limit | No | Number of contacts to retrieve (1-100, default 20) | |
| list_id | No | Filter contacts by contact list ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool supports both listing and searching, which is valuable context, but omits return format, pagination, and default behavior when no query is supplied. For a read-only listing tool, this is acceptable yet incomplete.
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?
One concise sentence that fronts the action, states the resource, and enumerates searchable fields. No wasted words or irrelevant detail; every element earns its place.
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 simple read-only listing tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description plus schema covers the essential usage modes. It could explicitly state that omitting q lists all contacts, but this is reasonably inferable from the 'list or search' phrasing.
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 baseline 3 applies. The description adds that q matches name, phone, or email—lightly redundant with the schema's own q description—and provides no extra semantic context for limit or list_id beyond what the schema already explains.
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?
Clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (saved contacts), and specifies searchable fields (name, phone, email). It distinguishes itself from sibling message/campaign/analytics tools by resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast with a contact-specific alternative.
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?
Provides implicit usage context by contrasting the two main modes—listing all saved contacts versus searching by contact fields. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no stated exclusions. With no contact-related siblings, this is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools split into clear clusters: customer-facing send/verify/get tools and admin ops tools. The three ops_* tools could initially seem similar, but their descriptions distinguish operational alerts, business health, and route quality. Minor overlap exists between ops_monitoring and ops_pulse, but overall boundaries are clear.
The set uses consistent prefixes: get_, send_, verify_, and ops_. This creates a predictable pattern for agents. Minor deviation is that ops_pulse and ops_route_quality are noun-style rather than verb-noun, and 'pulse' is less descriptive than the others.
Eight tools is well-scoped for an SMS/OTP server, covering customer actions, pricing/balance, and admin oversight without bloat. Each tool has a clear role and the count feels appropriate for the domain.
Core flows are covered: balance lookup, pricing, sending SMS, OTP lifecycle, and admin monitoring. A notable gap is lack of per-message delivery status or send history, but agents can still complete the primary send-and-verify workflows. Minor gaps exist but are workable.