freeagent_list_contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is established. The description adds the return field list and the note about using the contact URL in invoices/bills, which is useful but not additional behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations and schema provide. No contradictions exist.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('List FreeAgent contacts'), and the second sentence adds actionable guidance about the contact URL. Every word earns its place.

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?

Considering the low complexity, full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lists return fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema, and the parameter descriptions cover pagination and filtering. It does not need to explain simple details like status meaning, so it is complete for the tool's purpose.

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%, with each parameter (view, limit, search) fully described. The description's mention of 'clients and suppliers' aligns with the view enum but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 FreeAgent contacts (clients and suppliers)', using a specific verb (List) and resource (FreeAgent contacts) with added scope (clients and suppliers) and return fields. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as create_contact or list_invoices by being the only contact-listing tool.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it provides downstream usage context: 'Use the contact URL when raising an invoice or entering a supplier bill.' This implies a need for contact data when performing those operations, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so usage guidance is only implied.

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