contacts_needing_fixes

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

The description explicitly states it is 'Read-only' and 'flags are recomputed live', providing key behavioral traits. With no annotations provided, this is valuable. It does not cover rate limits or pagination, but the mutation safety is well conveyed.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential context (read-only, live recompute, defaults). Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., fields, count, pagination). It also lacks details on ordering or behavior with zero results. While the purpose is clear, the lack of output structure hinders full comprehension.

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 67% (env and country have descriptions, limit does not). The tool's description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. The undocumented 'limit' parameter leaves a gap for the agent, as its purpose and constraints are not explained.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'shipping contacts that currently warrant a system status flag', specifying exact conditions. It distinguishes this tool as a read-only counterpart of a backfill script, which differentiates it from sibling tools like db_query or coverage_report.

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 checking contacts that will break FedEx label creation, and notes it is read-only and live-recomputed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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