list_contacts

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results are paginated, and Quipu's JSON:API shape is flattened so attribute fields appear at the top level alongside `id`. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the purpose, then lists return fields, pagination, and the flattening behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, how pagination works, and the unusual flattening behavior, so an agent can invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 both `page` and `filter_name` are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the pagination behavior by explaining how to walk pages, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'List contacts (clients and suppliers) from Quipu.' It also names the exact fields returned, making the tool's role unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling operations like get_contact or create_contact.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool to retrieve contacts, and explicitly explains how to handle pagination with the `page` parameter. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_contact, but the list-versus-single-object distinction is clearly implied.

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