surveymonkey_list_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination, filtering, searching, and sorting behavior through the Args list, and 'Lists' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or whether search is partial or exact.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args list. Every line carries parameter semantics that the schema lacks, so nothing is redundant or wasted.

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 list operation with an output schema present, the description covers all inputs and their constraints. The main gap is the lack of usage context or relationship to sibling contact tools, but invocation-level completeness is strong.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter's meaning, allowed values, defaults, and role. This is essential value beyond the schema, which only provides bare titles and defaults.

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?

Description states a clear verb and resource: 'Lists contacts in the account.' It is specific enough to distinguish from get_contact, create_contact, and list_contact_lists, though it does not explicitly name any siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_contact_list_members or get_contact. The scope is implied by the name and one-line description, but no exclusions or routing cues are provided.

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