contacts_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but doesn't cover pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like (no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List contacts/partners') and adds clarifying examples without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how parameters interact (e.g., combining 'search' with 'is_customer'). The lack of behavioral context and usage guidelines makes it incomplete for effective agent use.

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 parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema adequately documents parameters, but the description doesn't enhance understanding (e.g., by explaining how 'search' interacts with filters or default behaviors).

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 verb ('List') and resource ('contacts/partners') with examples ('customers, vendors, etc.'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_list_leads' or 'odoo_search', which could also retrieve contact-like data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'crm_list_leads' (for leads) or 'odoo_search' (for Odoo-specific searches), nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage.

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