pipedrive_persons_list

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention that it is read-only, does not describe pagination behavior, rate limits, or required permissions, leaving the agent without critical operational context.

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 very short (one sentence) and concise, but it lacks structure and additional details that would be useful. It achieves conciseness but at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the complex schema (12 optional parameters, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover how filters work, how pagination is used, or what the response looks like, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its 12 parameters, and the description only mentions 'filters and pagination' without explaining specific parameters like cursor, sort_by, or custom_field_keys. It adds no meaningful semantics 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 'List persons with filters and pagination' clearly indicates the action and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools for other entities. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., all persons in the account) to differentiate from search tools.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not clarify when to use this tool over alternatives like pipedrive_persons_search or other list tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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