crm_contact_methods_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is established. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the operation returns one page and requires a contactId, and it enumerates the filter categories. This goes beyond purely restating schema or annotation data.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key invocation constraint (requires contactId) and the pagination behavior. Every clause carries operational meaning.

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 12-parameter filtered list tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the core decision factors: resource scope, filter types, required parameter, and return pagination. It does not detail sort behavior or named alternatives, but those gaps are relatively minor given the schema and sibling context.

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 67%, so the schema covers most parameters, but the description adds meaning by grouping the filter parameters into 'reference, type, value, or date filters' and explicitly clarifies that contactId is required and scopes the search to one contact. It also gives semantic context to otherwise bare date-time parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Search') and a clear resource boundary: one contact's phone, email, or other contact methods. It also lists the filter dimensions (reference, type, value, date) and explicitly notes the one-page return and required contactId, which distinguishes it from broader contact list and single-contact-get siblings.

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 'one contact's' combined with 'requires contactId' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when contact methods for a specific contact are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but it provides enough directional context to avoid confusion with contact list/get siblings.

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