reach_listProfileSegmentContactsV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, safe, or idempotent, nor does it describe error states, rate limits, or other side effects. The tool's behavior is assumed but not explicitly stated.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not explain what the response contains, nor does it provide any contextual details about the domain (e.g., reach/email marketing). Important behavioral details such as pagination handling are omitted, making the description incomplete for 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema; it merely restates the role of the UUIDs. No extra context on pagination or constraints is provided.

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 retrieves contacts associated with a specific segment for a given profile, using specific verbs and resource identification. It distinguishes from siblings like reach_listContactsV1 and reach_listSegmentsV1 by specifying the segment and profile scoping.

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 context (segment contacts) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like reach_listContactsV1 or reach_getSegmentDetailsV1, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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