wealthbox.contacts.list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists query parameters and an example, without mentioning pagination defaults, whether inactive contacts are included, filter matching semantics, response format, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a read-only list tool.

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 exceptionally concise, with a front-loaded main purpose, a compact parameter list, and a helpful example. Every element serves a clear function, and there is no wasted wording.

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?

The description lists all parameters but omits important behavioral context such as default page size, maximum per_page, whether inactive contacts are returned by default, and how to fetch all contacts. With no output schema and no annotations, these details are necessary for correct use, leaving the description incomplete for a list tool with a nested query object.

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%, but the description lists all query parameters in a compact line and illustrates the structure with an example. It adds the enum values for 'type' but does not explain semantics like partial matching or how filters combine (AND/OR). The schema already provides types and enums, so the description gives marginal additional meaning.

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 explicitly states 'List contacts' with a clear verb and resource. It lists the query parameters and provides an example, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like contacts.get, create, update, and delete. The scope 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?

The description implies its use for listing/searching contacts through the query parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternative tools such as contacts.get. There are no exclusions or mentions of alternative tools, so usage guidance is only implied.

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