list_contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination via limit/offset and filtering options, but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what specific information is returned in the 'List of contacts with their information'.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal but effective language. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the opening line could be slightly more specific about what 'list' entails (e.g., 'Retrieve and filter contacts').

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, filtering logic) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks behavioral context that would be important for safe operation, especially with no annotations to provide safety hints.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'Filter customers (True/False/None for all)'), clarifies default values, and documents the meaning of null values for boolean filters. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('contacts (partners) in Odoo'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_contact' (singular retrieval) and 'create_contact' (creation), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_records' that might offer different filtering capabilities, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred.

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