chargebee_list_customer_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('List') and includes the API endpoint (GET), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential issues like error handling, authentication requirements, or exact response structure beyond pagination, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, the API endpoint, and a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value 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 simple list tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, API endpoint, and all parameters. It does not explain return values (unnecessary due to output schema), but lacks details on edge cases like invalid customer_id or empty results, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

With zero coverage in the schema, the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter: customer_id as 'unique ID', limit with range (1-100) and default, and offset as a 'pagination cursor from previous response's next_offset'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 contacts (personnel) for a customer, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chargebee_list_customers (which lists customers) and chargebee_retrieve_customer (which retrieves a single customer).

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 purpose implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when you need contacts of a specific customer), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on choosing between this and chargebee_retrieve_customer if the agent needs full customer details, so usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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