list_contact_people

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no new behavioral context. It does not elaborate on pagination, filtering behavior, or any side effects beyond the schema, but annotations adequately cover safety.

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, concise and directly stating the function. It front-loads the key action but could be slightly more structured if it included usage hints. However, given the simplicity, it is appropriately sized.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description only mentions the required parameter. It does not explain what the response looks like, pagination, or the effect of 'with', 'q', 'filter', 'limit', 'offset'. Context signals indicate openWorldHint=true, which reduces the burden, but the description alone is not complete.

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%, meaning each parameter already has a description in the input schema. The tool description reiterates the required 'contact_id' but does not add semantics or clarify interplay between parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 that the tool returns a list of people for a specified contact. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_contact_person' (single) and 'list_contacts' (all contacts).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_contact_person' for a single person or 'list_contacts' for all contacts. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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