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 doesn't mention pagination, result limits, default ordering, or what 'optionally filtered' means when both filters are omitted. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

One efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the core verb and resource. Appropriately sized for a simple two-param list tool.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage leave the description responsible for return format, pagination, and param meaning — none of which it supplies. Inadequate for the tool's actual needs.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at 'company or a name/email search' without clarifying that the name/email search maps to the 'search' param or that companyId requires an integer. Half the parameters remain unexplained.

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?

Clear verb (List) and resource (CRM contacts) with stated scope. It does distinguish loosely from siblings like get_contact (single) and search_crm, though it never names them. Solid but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Implies usage via the optional filter wording, but provides no when-to-use/when-not guidance. Notably silent on when to prefer this over search_crm, a close sibling. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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