get_persons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type (JSON array) and default limit, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, authorization needs, or whether the operation is purely read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. A few sentences could be trimmed (e.g., 'including custom fields' is redundant), but overall it is efficient and clear.

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 an output schema present, return values are covered. The description mentions JSON array and example usage. For a simple retrieval tool with only two optional parameters, it covers the essential context. Missing error handling or invalid filter behavior, but acceptable given low complexity.

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 0% (no param descriptions in schema), so description fully compensates. It explains filter_id as a saved filter ID, suggests using get_filters, and shows examples. Limit is described with default. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states 'Get all persons/contacts from Pipedrive' with specific verb and resource. It mentions retrieval with optional filtering, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_person' (singular) or 'search_persons', which would strengthen clarity.

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?

Usage is implied through examples and parameter explanations (e.g., use filter_id for saved filters). It references 'get_filters' for available filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. Lacks when-not or alternative guidance.

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