clio_list_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior but only states routing and argument format. It fails to mention read-only nature, pagination, filtering, or return structure.

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 short but sacrifices completeness. It lacks structure and front-loads irrelevant routing details rather than core behavior. Every sentence fails to earn its place due to vagueness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine input structure, expected output, or side effects from this text.

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 0% description coverage with one parameter 'arguments'. The description only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding almost no meaning. It does not specify what keys the JSON expects.

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 merely repeats the tool name 'list_contacts' without explicitly stating that it lists contacts. It lacks a clear verb-resource statement and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like clio_get_contact or clio_search.

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 vs alternatives. It only mentions routing and JWT scope, which are not usage guidelines. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use indications.

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