tickets_list_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only list operation and adds a non-obvious behavioral warning: unresolvable contacts are silently dropped rather than rejected in the downstream create-case call. This is genuinely useful context beyond what the schema provides.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence contributes: the first states what the tool does, the second explains why and when to use it, including a critical warning.

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 simple list tool with two optional pagination parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete. It even includes workflow-specific context around silent contact rejection, which is exactly the kind of insight an agent needs.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with a 100% description coverage, including the upstream default for limit. The description does not add parameter-level detail, so the baseline score applies.

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 authorised contacts for your account.' It also distinguishes its purpose by tying it directly to tickets_create_case, so an agent can immediately tell this is the contact lookup tool rather than a generic list tool.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use this tool: before tickets_create_case, to obtain an exact contact value. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the create-case workflow guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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