aircall_list_contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning pagination and the specific return fields (phone numbers, emails), going beyond what annotations provide.

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 purpose and immediately followed by output details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 paginated list tool with full schema documentation and read-only annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose, return content, and pagination, though it could optionally mention default orders/filters, but these are already in the schema.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all five parameters. The description mentions pagination, which relates to page/per_page, but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it lists all contacts with pagination and returns contact details including phone numbers and emails. The verb 'List' and resource 'contacts' are specific, and scope 'all' is implied. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like aircall_search_contacts, which prevents a perfect score.

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 word 'all' — this tool is for retrieving complete contact lists, while filtered searches would use aircall_search_contacts. However, no explicit guidance or alternatives are mentioned, so clarity is limited.

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