xero_list_contacts

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose that the operation is read-only, whether it supports pagination, or what the output format typically includes. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged to summarize behavior.

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 (three sentences) and front-loads the operation name. However, it includes routing details that are not essential for function selection, and the 'Args' section provides no useful parameter guidance. Slightly padded.

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 is a list operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention that the tool returns a list of contacts, lacks filtering or pagination details, and fails to tie the output schema to the expected behavior. The agent would need external knowledge to use this correctly.

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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining expected keys or structure, but it does not.

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 identifies the tool as listing contacts from Xero via the connector operation name and platform tool identifier. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like xero_list_accounts or xero_list_invoices, but the name itself is sufficiently clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., xero_list_contacts vs. xero_search_contacts). No context about filtering, bulk retrieval, or prerequisites is provided, leaving the agent without decision support.

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