pax8_list_company_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description states 'List contacts', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any permissions, rate limits, or output format details. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured as a docstring with clear parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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's simplicity, an output schema exists (though not shown), so the description need not explain return values. The description covers the purpose and all parameters. It could add details about error handling or required permissions, but for a straightforward read-only list operation with well-documented parameters, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: company_id as the unique identifier, page as zero-based with a default, and size as results per page with a default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults, fully compensating for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 for a specific company, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like pax8_list_companies by specifying the resource is contacts and that it is scoped to a company. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 the tool is for retrieving contacts for a company, which is distinct from listing companies, invoices, or other resources. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is clear from the name and description but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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