reach_listProfileContactsV1

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the disclosure burden. It reveals pagination behavior, the filtering mechanism, and the meaning of meta.total, including the edge case of no filters giving the total count. However, it doesn't mention error handling, default page size, or rate limits, which would elevate transparency further.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, filtering options, and response semantics. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids fluff. No unnecessary details or repetition of schema fields.

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 essential context about the response (meta.total) and filter behavior, which helps the agent understand the tool's capabilities. It doesn't describe the contact object fields, but sibling tools likely share a common structure. Some missing details like default pagination limits could make it more complete, but overall it's solid.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how filters interact and that meta.total reflects the filtered count, which is not stated in the schema. It also clarifies that the search parameter is an email search, reinforcing the schema description. This is meaningful supplementary semantics.

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 opens with 'Get a paginated list of contacts belonging to a profile,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like reach_listContactsV1 (all contacts) and reach_listSegmentContactsV1 (segment contacts) by scoping to a profile. The mention of filtering options further clarifies the purpose.

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 explains the primary context: retrieving profile-specific contacts with optional filters. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the profile scope and filter list imply when to use it. It could be stronger by contrasting with reach_listContactsV1, but the provided context is adequate.

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