emergency_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, how pagination works via the multiple after/first pairs, or what the nested filters represent. The word 'query' hints at a read operation, but the details are entirely omitted, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 a single run-on sentence that dumps a long list of variable names followed by a truncated example. It is not concise, lacks logical structure, and mixes raw parameter names with example values. This is the opposite of front-loaded, purposeful prose; it reads like an auto-generated metadata dump rather than a crafted tool description.

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?

This tool has 18 parameters, one required ID, no output schema, and no annotations. The description offers no explanation of the return value, the significance of the multiple pagination/filter pairs, or the relationship between 'emergencyContact' and the sibling 'emergency_contacts' tool. Given the complexity, this description is severely inadequate for an agent to understand how or when to invoke the tool.

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 schema descriptions are merely GraphQL type references (e.g., 'String', 'Int'), so the description's example variables JSON provides some concrete structure, especially for the 'filter' object. However, the example is truncated and does not explain the meaning of the many repeated parameters (after1, first1, filter1, etc.). Thus, the description adds minimal clarity beyond the schema and fails to adequately compensate for the lack of semantic parameter descriptions.

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 mentions 'query emergencyContact' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that this tool fetches a single emergency contact by ID. It lists a large number of variables without clarifying the primary function, and it fails to distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'emergency_contacts' (plural). The purpose is ambiguous and leans toward a generic query rather than a specific, clearly defined operation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'emergency_contacts' or 'create_emergency_contact'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely a list of variable names and an example, with no practical instructions for tool selection.

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