forgotten_contacts

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context about the default exclusion of contacts you've never replied to, which goes beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't describe output format, pagination behavior, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for an agent.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds important behavioral context about the default exclusion. No wasted words, and the most important information comes first.

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 read-only query tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. The lack of output schema means the agent won't know the return format, but the description gives enough information about what the tool does to be useful. The description could be more complete by mentioning what information is returned about each contact.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('find dormant relationships', 'reconnecting') and identifies the resource ('contacts you used to message'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_contacts' or 'get_contact' by focusing specifically on inactive relationships rather than general contact listing or retrieval.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('reconnecting with people you've lost touch with') and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by its unique focus on dormant contacts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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