superchat_list_contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it states the ordering ('newest first') and the pagination behavior ('one page'), which are not in the annotations. This adds value without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The primary function is front-loaded, and the alternative-usage note is a single, tightly worded sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only, paginated list tool, this description is complete. It specifies the ordering, the one-page limitation, and when to use a sibling tool instead. The schema covers parameter details, and the annotations cover safety. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool or how to use it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% – all three parameters (after, limit, before) have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter semantics; it only mentions pagination implicitly. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that baseline.

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 the tool's function: 'List one page of contacts, newest first.' It uses a specific verb (list), resource (contacts), and scope (one page, newest first), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_contacts by noting it handles exact matches. This is a precise, non-tautological statement.

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 second sentence explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool and which alternative to choose: 'For an exact email, phone, Instagram or custom-attribute match, use search_contacts instead of scanning pages.' This provides clear when/when-not guidance and names the alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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