ghl_get_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a list/search operation supporting query filtering and cursor-based pagination, which is helpful, but it does not describe return format, default or maximum page sizes, or any other behavioral traits beyond what is in the schema.

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, with two short sentences that are front-loaded. Every clause contributes meaningful information about the tool's purpose and capabilities, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not explain return values or pagination behavior details. It also does not differentiate from the sibling ghl_search_contacts. However, for a read-only listing tool with fully described parameters, it is minimally adequate.

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 100% for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions query and cursor-based pagination, which aligns with the schema parameters but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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/searches contacts in the GHL location, with filtering and pagination. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling ghl_search_contacts or ghl_get_contact, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 clear context for listing/searching contacts and mentions filtering and pagination, but it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like ghl_search_contacts, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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