list_contact_ids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns only IDs and is faster than a full listing, and it gives a behavioral hint about 'keyword' being a 'simple search across indexed fields.' It does not discuss edge cases, sorting, or exact output formatting, but the output schema covers return structure, making this adequate for a simple read operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then presents parameters in a clean, scannable list. Every line earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema trivia beyond what is useful.

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 simple listing tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage context, and all parameters. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly naming sibling alternatives or noting that all parameters are optional, but the existing information is enough for an agent to use it effectively.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter: record_type with its allowed values, keyword as a simple indexed-field search, per_page with default, and page with a start value. This adds real meaning beyond the bare parameter names, though the explanations are concise rather than exhaustive.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List contact IDs only') and explicitly contrasts with 'a full contact listing,' which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_contacts. The purpose is immediately obvious and unique.

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 phrase 'faster than a full contact listing' clearly implies this tool is the choice when only IDs are needed, offering clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_contacts or search_contacts, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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