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 mentions 'pagination support,' which is useful context beyond basic listing, but fails to describe critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 action ('List all contacts in Freshdesk') and adds essential context ('with pagination support') without redundancy. 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?

Given the complexity of a paginated list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error cases, return format (e.g., structure of contact objects), and how pagination works in practice. For a tool with 2 parameters and behavioral nuances, this minimal description leaves the agent under-informed.

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 implies pagination through 'with pagination support,' hinting at parameters like page and per_page, but doesn't explicitly name or explain them. With 0% schema description coverage (parameters only have titles 'Page' and 'Per Page'), the description adds marginal value by suggesting pagination behavior. However, it doesn't detail default values, valid ranges, or usage examples, keeping it at the baseline for partial compensation.

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 ('all contacts in Freshdesk'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_contact' (singular) and 'search_contacts' (filtered search) by emphasizing 'all' contacts. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_contact_fields' or other list tools, preventing a perfect score.

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 when to prefer 'list_contacts' over 'search_contacts' (for filtered results) or 'get_contact' (for a single contact), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or access rights. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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