list_contacts

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. It only adds scope distinction (individual vs. third-party contacts) and does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, ordering, output format, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a listing tool with no annotations.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose without any filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key information.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on return values, pagination, and comparison with related tools like get_thirdparty_contacts. It is minimally adequate but does not provide enough context for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 50% with page and limit lacking descriptions. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameter usage or providing examples. It adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already covers for sqlfilters and thirdparty_id, leaving page and limit undefined.

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 that the tool lists individual contacts (natural persons) distinct from third parties/companies. It uses a specific verb ('Lister') and identifies the resource ('contacts individuels'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_thirdparties and get_thirdparty_contacts by clarifying the type of contacts included.

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 the tool: when listing natural persons rather than organizations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., list_thirdparties) or provide when-not-to-use conditions, leaving some room for ambiguity in complex scenarios.

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