list_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return shape (count, page, results), filter behavior, and summary-field scope. Minor gaps: doesn't specify default behavior when filters are null (e.g., active=null), but overall good for a list tool.

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?

Concise and well-structured: purpose first, then filters, then return value and alternative. Every sentence adds value, no redundant detail.

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 no output schema, the description provides reasonable completeness: lists filters, return shape, and points to get_contact for full details. Could mention sorting or null-filter behavior, but for a list endpoint with optional filters, it's largely sufficient.

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?

Description adds meaningful semantics for search, contact_type, and active beyond the schema (which has no property descriptions). It also hints at pagination via return shape. Page and page_size are not explicitly explained, but their defaults and names in the schema make them self-evident.

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 tool lists contacts (clients and suppliers) with summary fields, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from get_contact by noting summary fields vs full record.

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?

Provides explicit instructions on filters and their semantics (search, contact_type, active), and explicitly directs users to get_contact for full records. This clearly differentiates when to use this tool vs an alternative.

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