pylon_get_contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool returns ('contact details like name, email, company, and contact history'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no contacts match the search criteria.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states the tool's function and context, the second describes the return values. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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?

For a read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides basic context about what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks important details about behavioral characteristics (rate limits, authentication, error conditions) and doesn't clarify the relationship with the similar 'pylon_search_contacts' sibling tool, leaving gaps in complete understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions searching generally but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage, interactions, or constraints beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 'Get' and resource 'customer contacts from Pylon', specifying it's for finding customers who submitted support tickets or inquiries. It distinguishes from generic contact tools by mentioning the support context, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'pylon_search_contacts' which appears to serve a similar search function.

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 context about when to use it ('to find customers who have submitted support tickets or inquiries'), which implies usage for support-related contact lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention the alternative 'pylon_search_contacts' sibling tool that appears to serve a similar search function, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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