getContacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two important traits: the rate limit (100 req/min) and the read-only nature ('Read-only'). These are genuinely useful operational behaviors beyond what any schema shows. It falls short only on return-format/pagination behavior, which is not disclosed in a world with no annotations and no output 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?

One compact sentence front-loads the core purpose and packs in the rate limit and read-only disclosure efficiently. No filler. The only mark against it is that critical behavioral info is crammed into parentheticals rather than being fully integrated, and the missing parameter info is an omission rather than a style issue.

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 simple paginated list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the rate limit, method, and endpoint, but leaves out parameter semantics and any statement about what the response contains. The tool is simple enough that some gaps are tolerable, but in a no-annotation environment the description should do more.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the three parameters (limit, offset, search). An agent sees raw param names with no types, formats, defaults, or semantics. In a no-annotation context with 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess at meaning.

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 opens with 'List contacts,' a clear verb+resource that distinguishes this from getContactsById (a single-resource fetch). The endpoint 'GET /postframe/contacts' reinforces the listing semantics. It could be slightly more specific about what a contact is, but the core purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The sibling list contains many list/get tools, and the description never contrasts with getContactsById or mentions pagination/search use cases. An agent can infer 'use to list contacts' but receives no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use direction.

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