alga_clients_contacts_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come back paged ("one page at a time"), which tells the agent to iterate, but it says nothing about page defaults, total counts, or whether inactive contacts are included by default.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary scope front-loaded and the disambiguation trailing. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

For a five-parameter list tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition explains only the id scoping. An agent still has to guess what search filters on, what is_inactive does, and how paging limits behave before it can call this confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for five parameters. It usefully clarifies that the required "id" is a client id rather than a contact id, but the search, is_inactive, page, and limit parameters get no explanation of semantics or filtering behavior.

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?

"List contacts belonging to one client" names a specific verb, resource, and scope, and immediately contrasts it with alga_contacts_list and alga_contacts_search. An agent can select this tool without opening any sibling schema.

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?

It explicitly routes: use alga_contacts_list to browse across clients, alga_contacts_search to find a person by name/email, and this tool when the client is already known. Both the condition for using it and the alternatives are stated.

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