list_correspondents

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idlempotentHint, openWorldHint) already indicate it's a safe, read-only, possibly partial result. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations, such as explaining pagination behavior or the effect of the openWorldHint.

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 short (one phrase), which sacrifices necessary information for brevity. It fails to earn its place by omitting details critical for correct usage.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, pagination, filtering) and no output schema details, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return structure, pagination limits, or filtering behavior.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters (page, page_size, ordering, name__icontains). An agent gets no guidance on how to use these parameters from the description.

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 'List correspondents' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is very broad and does not differentiate from sibling list tools like list_documents or list_custom_fields. It lacks any scope or context that would help an agent understand what exactly is being listed.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_correspondent (single item) or search_documents. The description does not mention pagination, filtering, or any prerequisites.

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