retrieve_contact_geo_ips

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds redundant but non-contradictory 'READ-ONLY' and 'Fetches data. Makes no changes.' It does not disclose additional behaviors like authorization requirements or response structure.

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 (3 lines), uses emoji and bold for visual clarity, and front-loads the action. Every segment 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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what geo-ips are, typical use cases, or pagination behavior. Schema documents parameters well, but the tool's purpose and output remain vague.

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%; all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning or usage context for the parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Retrieve a contacts list of geo-ips'. It includes the HTTP method, endpoint, and emphasizes that it is read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve other contact data (e.g., notes, deals).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. With many sibling tools for contact data, more direction is needed.

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