get--v3-search-contacts-lists

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. The word 'View' implies a read operation, but it does not describe the output format, the effect of the 'q' query parameter, pagination behavior, or whether the lists are sorted or filtered by default. This is too minimal to provide meaningful transparency.

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?

At only one short phrase, the description is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It echoes the tool's name nearly verbatim and fails to earn its place, since it does not add meaningful information.

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?

Although the tool is simple with only one parameter and no nested objects, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'q' parameter, the type of data returned in the list, or any behavioral nuances, and without output schema there is no extra context to compensate.

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 schema defines one parameter, 'q', with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this leaves the agent with no idea what 'q' represents, what values are valid, or whether it is a filter, a search term, or something else.

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 uses a specific verb ('View') and resource ('Contact Lists'), clearly identifying the operation. It is distinct from the sibling tools, all of which focus on SMS (send, price, templates, statistics, history). However, it omits the 'search' aspect implied by the tool name and could be more specific about what 'view' entails.

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. It does not mention the SMS-related siblings at all, nor does it explain any scenario where this tool is specifically needed. The agent can only infer usage from the resource name in the description.

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