bexio Contact Sectors

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

Annotations confirm read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds concrete behavioral details: actions, optional parameters, searchable fields, and the relationship to contacts via contact_branch_ids. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise, packing purpose, actions, and parameter details into a single sentence plus a compact list. Every phrase adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's functionality: read-only master data retrieval with two actions, pagination, ordering, and search. It is complete for the task.

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 100%, but the description adds critical context beyond the schema: for 'list', it specifies valid order_by values (id, name) and the format for descending; for 'search', it states required search_criteria and searchable field 'name'. This enriches the parameter understanding.

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 'Read contact sectors' and specifies actions (list, search), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a specific entity referenced by contacts.

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 indicates the tool is read-only and outlines when to use list vs search, providing implicit usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or specify when not to use it.

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