list_contact_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not confirm whether the operation is safe, idempotent, or affected by rate limits. It also does not disclose that the result set is likely paginated (indicated by the after/limit/before parameters) or how the parameters affect the response.

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, short sentence that front-loads the primary verb and resource. The inclusion of the HTTP endpoint is slightly redundant given the tool name, but it adds a useful protocol hint. No word is wasted, and it is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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?

There is no output schema and the parameter schema is 100% undocumented. The description only states the basic action, leaving out critical information about pagination, return format, and parameter usage. An agent attempting to call this tool would not know how to specify the optional parameters or interpret the response, making the definition inadequate for a tool with three parameters.

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 0%, and the description does not mention or explain any of the three parameters (after, limit, before). The parameter names suggest pagination, but the description provides no guidance on how to use them, leaving agents to guess their types and purposes. Full compensation would require describing the cursor mechanics, which is absent.

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 states the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'contact properties', which clearly identifies the tool's function. The HTTP endpoint '(GET /contact-properties)' reinforces the action. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_contact_property, delete_contact_property, and create_contact_property based on the verb, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself in prose.

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 such as get_contact_property (for a single property) or list_contacts (for contacts). It does not mention pagination semantics or that this is the correct endpoint for enumerating all properties. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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