list_contact_segments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The explicit GET method signals a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination semantics, ordering, or behavior when contact_id does not exist.

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?

A single sentence plus endpoint; there is no filler and the key distinction is front-loaded. This is appropriately concise.

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?

The description is sufficient for a basic read call, and the output-return shape is not required since there is no output schema. However, with no annotations and undocumented pagination parameters, an agent lacks enough context to invoke it correctly in all cases.

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 25%, and the tool description adds no parameter details. contact_id is obvious from the endpoint and schema, but after, before, and limit are left entirely undocumented, forcing the agent to guess at pagination direction and limits.

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 names a specific verb, resource, and relationship: 'List the segments a contact belongs to'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_segments and list_segment_contacts, and the GET endpoint reinforces the exact scope.

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?

Usage context is implied by the phrase 'a contact belongs to': use this when you need segments for one contact. However, no explicit guidance explains when to prefer this over list_segments or how it relates to other segment tools.

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