hs_list_company_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states a basic read operation. It fails to disclose ordering, pagination behavior, side effects, or any constraints. As a minimal description, it adds little beyond the name.

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 concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It is front-loaded with purpose but misses the opportunity to present additional context efficiently. Could be improved with bullet points or a more informative single sentence.

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?

No output schema means the return format is completely unspecified. The description does not hint at what fields are returned, error conditions, or pagination handling. For a simple tool, this is a significant gap given no other documentation.

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 50% (companyId described, limit not). The description does not mention the limit parameter or its default/range, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 specifies the action (list) and resource (contacts) within a context (associated with a company), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hs_search_contacts or hs_get_contact.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hs_search_contacts or hs_recent_contacts. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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