get_contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a POST-based read, may be an alias, returns display name/email first, and is not meant for paginated directory access.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose and usage decision. The phrase 'Spectral-proven; may be alias' adds noise without helping an agent invoke the tool, so it is not quite a perfect 5.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description gives enough high-level guidance for a basic call, including when to use it and what to display first. However, body_json semantics are unexplained and there is no output schema, leaving ambiguity about request construction and full response shape.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'Optional body_json object.' It does not explain what should go inside body_json, what format is expected, or how it affects the request. Worse, it describes body_json as an object while the schema allows string or null, which is potentially misleading.

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 states a specific action ('Fetch contacts') and resource ('via POST /v2/getContacts'), and distinguishes itself from get_people by positioning this as a quick contact lookup. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous even among many sibling 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?

It explicitly says 'Call for quick contact lookup; prefer get_people for paginated directory,' which gives both a when-to-use condition and a named alternative. This is exactly the kind of usage guidance an agent needs.

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