dealdesk.list_contacts

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state return format, whether results are paginated, whether the limit caps the listing, or what permissions/project scope are required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness reflects under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.

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 3-parameter listing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema coverage, one sentence is not sufficient. It omits pagination, result shape, sorting, and how limit and q interact, leaving real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 only 33%: projectId is documented in the schema, but q and limit are not. The word 'Search' marginally hints at q's purpose, but limit (1-100) and its default/behavior are completely unexplained in either the schema or the description.

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 states a clear verb ('search'/'list') and resource ('customer-directory contacts'), so the agent knows this returns contact records. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like dealdesk.get_contact or dealdesk.list_companies, which is what would push this to a 5.

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?

Phrasing it as 'Search or list' implies two modes (supply q to search, omit it to list), giving implied usage. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no mention of the nearest alternatives such as get_contact for a single record.

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