List Contributors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: results are sorted by image count descending, and contact info is only present 'if available' — a genuinely helpful disclosure. However, it omits pagination behavior, whether the list is complete or truncated, and any rate-limit or permission notes.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope, ordering, and return fields. Front-loaded with the core purpose and free of filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (name, UUID, image count, contact info), which is exactly what the agent needs. It is only slightly short on pagination behavior for a list endpoint.

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 100% and the single 'page' parameter is fully documented there, including its zero-indexed default and bounds. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List all PhyloPic contributors') and clarifies the entity with a parenthetical definition, plus the sort order. It never names sibling tools like get_contributor or list_images_by_contributor, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 explains what the tool returns but never says when to choose it over get_contributor (single contributor) or list_images_by_contributor (images for one contributor). No prerequisites, exclusions, or pagination guidance are offered.

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