get_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. While 'Get list' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no contacts exist. The description is too minimal for a tool with behavioral implications.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no space on redundant information. This is an excellent example of efficient communication.

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 data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the contacts are returned in, what fields they contain, whether the list is filtered or sorted, or how pagination works in practice. The agent would need to guess about important operational details.

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% description coverage, with both parameters ('limit' and 'page') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how these parameters affect the contact retrieval.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of contacts from Kommo CRM'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other contact-related tools like 'get_contact_activities' or 'get_companies', which could also retrieve contact data in different contexts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_contact_activities' and 'get_companies' that might provide overlapping or related contact information, there's no indication of when this specific contact listing tool is appropriate versus other data retrieval options.

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