Contact List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the scope of returned data (fields and conversation count) but says nothing about pagination or result-size behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The purpose and returned data are stated immediately, and every clause 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 list tool with full annotation coverage and 100% parameter documentation and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could still note pagination limits or the difference from contact_get, but nothing critical for invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (page, limit, search, senderOnly, organizationId) are already documented in the schema, including the pointer to organization_list. The prose only implies searchability, adding little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb-set (list or search) and resource (contacts/customers) of an organization, and enumerates the returned fields. It is clear on its own, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling contact_get, so an agent must infer list-vs-single from the name alone.

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?

'List or search' implies the read/collection use case, and the search parameter is named in prose. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus contact_get or when-not guidance, and no mention of prerequisites beyond the schema's own organizationId hint.

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