List contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that contacts are end users and that exact email/phone matching is server-side, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or default ordering.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the filtering clarification. Every sentence carries information.

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?

Adequate for a read-only list tool whose annotations and full schema coverage carry the safety and parameter burden, and no output schema is needed. It is incomplete on sibling differentiation (find_contacts, get_contact) and pagination behavior, which an agent needs in a crowded toolset.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description echoes email/phone filtering semantics but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List contacts') and disambiguates the resource as 'end users'. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling find_contacts, which an agent must choose between for contact retrieval.

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 note that exact email/phone filtering is 'done by Atera' implies server-side filtering is supported, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to find_contacts or get_contact as alternatives. Usage is only inferable.

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