get_contact_favorites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Get... Returns the list...'), which is consistent with the tool name. It does not mention any side effects or permissions, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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 concise—two sentences, no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and every word adds value. It is optimally sized for its simplicity.

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?

With only one parameter and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and use case. However, it lacks information about the output format (e.g., list of property IDs or objects), which would be helpful given no output schema. Otherwise, it is reasonably complete for a simple get tool.

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 coverage is 100% (contact_id described as 'Contact ID'). The description does not add any further meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'contact' in the use case but does not elaborate on the parameter format or constraints.

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 action ('Get properties that a contact has favorited/bookmarked') and the resource ('contact favorites'), with an explicit use case ('understand which listings a buyer is most interested in'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on favorites retrieval, which no other sibling tool does.

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 when to use the tool ('to understand which listings a buyer is most interested in'), which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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