list_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose read-only nature explicitly (though implied), doesn't describe pagination behavior, and doesn't explain what happens if both email and search_term are provided. It does mention autocomplete behavior but that's already in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no filler.

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 tool has 4 parameters with 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is sufficient for basic usage but misses pagination and filter-combination behavior.

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?

The description adds a mild distinction between email (exact match) and search_term (autocomplete) beyond the schema descriptions, but it adds nothing about page/per_page, which are undocumented. With 50% schema coverage, description should compensate but doesn't fully.

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 lists contacts and offers two distinct search modes (email exact match and name/phone autocomplete). This distinguishes it from ticket/group tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_contact.

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 clear guidance on which parameter to use for which intent (email for exact match, search_term for autocomplete). However, it doesn't mention alternatives like get_contact for single-contact retrieval, so it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives.

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