keap_list_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly identifies the operation as an API GET, which signals a read-only action, and discloses pagination behavior with default limit and offset. It does not mention rate limits or exact match semantics, but for a simple list operation the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by an API reference and a clear Args list. Every line adds value, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the zero schema coverage. No filler or redundancy.

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 existing output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the endpoint, all parameters, and pagination/sort behavior, making the tool invokable. It could have explicitly stated that all filters are optional or how multiple filters combine, but the defaults in the schema largely fill that gap.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides a clear, human-readable explanation for all six parameters, including 'Filter by first name', 'Max results per page (default 20)', and sort field examples. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles and types.

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 begins with 'List contacts', a specific verb+resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like keap_get_contact (single contact), keap_create_contact, and keap_list_contact_tags. The 'API: GET /contacts' line further reinforces the exact operation.

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 implies usage through the verb 'List' and the filter/pagination parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as keap_get_contact for a single contact. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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