list_contact_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It implies a read-only listing but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, caching, or ordering. The description is straightforward but could be more transparent.

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 short, consisting of three sentences with no fluff. Each sentence adds value: stating the action, explaining usage, and giving examples.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a simple listing tool: it lists contact statuses and explains how to use the IDs. It is complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params), so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since none exist, earning the baseline score of 4.

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 'List contact statuses' with a specific verb and resource, and provides examples like 'Lead', 'Kunde', 'Archiviert'. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by specifying 'contact statuses'.

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 explicitly instructs how to use the IDs for search_contacts and create_contact/update_contact, providing clear context of use. It does not mention when not to use, but the guidance is direct.

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