contacts_get_contacts_by_business_id

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already communicate that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as pagination details (skip/limit), filtering via query, or the return format. Since annotations are present but the description contributes nothing beyond them, a score of 2 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words, so it is concise. However, structure and front-loading are weak because it merely repeats the name with no useful information first. It is appropriately short but not effectively structured to convey meaning.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to mention that contacts are returned as a list, how pagination via skip/limit works, what the query parameter does, or the default behavior for locationId. An agent cannot correctly call this tool based on this definition alone.

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 only 20% (only locationId has a description). The tool description does not explain any parameters—skip, limit, query, businessId, or locationId—nor does it clarify their purpose or format. With such low schema coverage, the description must compensate but entirely fails to do so, leaving all 5 parameters underspecified.

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 By BusinessId' is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no additional explanation of what the tool actually does, such as whether it returns a list of contacts, what fields are included, or how it differs from sibling tools like contacts_get_contacts. It lacks specificity about the resource and scope, making it barely more informative than the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like contacts_get_contacts, contacts_search_contacts_advanced, or contacts_get_contact. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any direction for selection.

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