teamleader_list_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions optional filtering and pagination, which are behavioral traits, but it does not disclose output format, ordering, side effects (though a list operation is read-only), auth requirements, or any edge-case behavior. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted text; every word contributes to stating what the tool does.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is expected to provide richer context. It fails to mention response structure, pagination behavior beyond the schema's max page size, filtering semantics, or any practical usage notes. For a tool with 5 optional parameters, this is insufficient to fully guide an agent.

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 schema provides full documentation for all 5 parameters with descriptions (coverage 100%), so the description need not elaborate. The description's mention of 'optional filtering and pagination' maps to the parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action (list) and resource (contacts from Teamleader Focus), which is specific enough to distinguish from get_contact and other list tools. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling list tools beyond the resource name, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for listing multiple contacts but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like get_contact or list_companies. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, leaving the selection to the agent's inference from tool names.

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