get_status_contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds context that the tool returns a 'metric' (count), aligning with behavioral expectations. However, it does not detail what 'conversation status' encompasses or if data is real-time.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded purpose, no unnecessary words. Highly concise.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, but lacks an output schema. The description states it's a 'metric' but doesn't hint at the output structure (e.g., list of status-count pairs). Adequate for basic understanding but could be more complete.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool returns a count of contacts grouped by conversation status, which is a specific verb-resource combination. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_contacts (which lists individual contacts) and other metric tools.

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 implies usage for obtaining aggregated contact counts, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_contacts or other report tools. No mention of when not to use.

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