contacts_get_contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds zero behavioral context beyond that — no mention of pagination defaults, return format, filtering behavior, or any non-obvious side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description still fails to add meaningful transparency about what 'Get Contacts' actually returns or how it behaves.

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?

'Get Contacts' is extremely short but under-specified rather than effectively concise. There is no structure, no grouping of information, and no front-loading of key facts. The description wastes the opportunity to add any useful guidance, so it fails the 'every sentence should earn its place' test because it has no substance at all.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides no overview, no explanation of how parameters interact, no pagination defaults, and no mention of what the returned data represents. An agent cannot infer the correct usage or expected results from this description alone. Complete inadequacy for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so every parameter (limit, query, locationId, startAfter, startAfterId) has a description. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents them adequately. No extra value is provided by the description.

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 'Get Contacts' merely repeats the tool name (contacts_get_contacts) and adds no specification of scope or distinction from siblings. It doesn't clarify whether this retrieves all contacts, supports filtering, or how it differs from contacts_get_contact, contacts_get_contacts_by_business_id, or contacts_search_contacts_advanced. It is a tautological restatement of the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for contacts (e.g., contacts_get_contact, contacts_search_contacts_advanced), and the description doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative routes. An agent would have no basis to select this tool over others.

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