Get Contact Properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains pagination mechanics in detail (meta.cursor behavior), describes the return payload structure, and clarifies the cursor parameter's role. This is strong transparency for a read-only list endpoint, though it does not cover auth or error conditions.

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 well-structured with paragraphs and labeled sections (Args, Returns). It includes all necessary information without redundancy or fluff. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior, making it efficiently concise.

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?

The description is complete for a single-parameter list endpoint. It explains the purpose, pagination details, parameter usage, and return format. Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return dictionary and property fields, making it sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has only a cursor parameter with no description, but the tool description fully explains its purpose, source (meta.cursor from previous response), and how to use it for pagination. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool retrieves all contact properties from Tidio and explains what these properties are (fields like name, email, phone, and custom ones). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contacts and get_contact_details, which deal with contact records rather than the schema of properties.

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 does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It implies the tool is for fetching available fields, but it does not explicitly exclude or compare to sibling tools. The usage context is clear but not directly contrasted with other tools.

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