wafeq_contacts_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description's 'READ-ONLY' adds no new behavioral information. It also does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering semantics, default page size, or what data is returned. There is no contradiction, but the description adds little beyond the 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 short and front-loaded, but it is redundant: 'List contacts' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a list of contacts' say the same thing. The emoji and endpoint line add some context, but the duplicate phrasing means not every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of pagination or filtering behavior, this description is too minimal for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. The schema supplies parameter names, but the description misses guidance about result shape, default behavior, or how the filters interact.

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 90%, and most parameters have their own descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself contributes nothing about parameters, but the schema carries the burden. Some schema descriptions are inaccurate or repetitive, such as the date filters referring to 'bill' rather than 'contact,' and the description does not help resolve that.

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 operation: 'List contacts' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a list of contacts.' It identifies the resource and distinguishes itself from the sibling contact tools like wafeq_contacts_retrieve, create, update, and destroy. It could be stronger by noting list-specific scope or contrast, but it is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among the many list endpoints in the sibling set, the description does not explain that this is for contact retrieval or mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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