alga_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 by structured data. The description adds the pagination behavior ("one page at a time"), which is genuine value beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about default page size, ordering defaults, or result shape. Adequate but not rich.

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 action and its pagination constraint front-loaded before the disambiguation sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, filtering, and the sibling alternative well. It would be stronger if it clarified the in-tool `search` parameter and default page size, but nothing critical to a correct invocation is missing.

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 must carry the parameter burden. It implicitly covers client_id and is_inactive ("filter by client or inactive state") and hints at page/limit via "one page at a time," but sort, order, and the in-tool `search` parameter are never explained, and the two enums go unmentioned.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List contacts") and immediately scopes the result set with "one page at a time." It also names the sibling tool it is not (alga_contacts_search), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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 states explicit usage conditions — browsing, or filtering by client or inactive state — and names the alternative (alga_contacts_search) for name/email lookup. The only gap is that the tool's own `search` parameter overlaps with that alternative and the description never reconciles the two, leaving a small ambiguity about when in-tool search is appropriate.

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