List Employee Contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes scope ('contact-centric', 'across multiple employees') but omits details about return structure, default behavior, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'list' but not explicitly stated.

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?

The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler or redundant details. Every word 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?

Given the tool has 6 filter parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It explains what the tool does but does not mention return format, default limits, or any edge cases. However, the schema descriptions for parameters compensate somewhat.

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 descriptive parameter definitions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, but also does not need to, as the schema fully explains each filter.

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 employee contact records across multiple employees, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('contact-centric list'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_employee by noting that individual contacts are included there, clarifying scope.

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 context that this tool is for contact records across multiple employees, and mentions that get_employee also includes individual contacts, hinting at when to prefer that tool. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when...' or 'do not use when...', so it stops short of a full alternative recommendation.

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