contact_comments

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses nothing about behavior such as whether the tool returns a list, supports pagination, or has any side effects. The description carries the full burden but is only a label, so the agent has no idea what to expect from invoking it.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single noun phrase that restates the title does not earn its place; it fails to convey the operation or usage. Effective concision would still include a verb and key context.

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 tool with six parameters, a required id, and an output schema, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not state the core action, the return type, or the relationship to the contact, making it impossible for an agent to correctly use the tool without external knowledge.

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 description adds no meaning about parameters. Although the schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions, the description itself does not clarify how the 'id' parameter relates to the contact context or how fields/typeList work in this specific tool, so it offers zero value beyond the schema.

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 'Комментарии к контакту' is a noun phrase that restates the tool name in Russian, essentially providing no action verb. It identifies the resource (contact comments) but does not specify whether this tool lists, creates, or updates comments, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like task_comments or comment_list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clues for tool selection among the many comment-related siblings.

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