List contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it supports pagination and filters, and query performs full-text search on name/phone/email. This gives the agent useful expectations about the tool's behavior without contradicting 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence is essential; the second adds a quick query hint but is somewhat redundant with the schema description for 'query'. No waste, but the second sentence could be replaced with more valuable guidance.

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 an 8-parameter list tool with no output schema and only 25% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to use filter_id, filter_responsible_user_id, order_id, or the 'with' parameter, nor does it mention default behavior (e.g., default page/limit). The annotations provide safety but not operational completeness for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 only 25%, with descriptions for only 'with' and 'query'. The description's mention of query search simply repeats the schema description ('Full-text search (name, phone, email)') and does not explain the six other parameters (page, limit, order_id, filter_id, order_updated_at, filter_responsible_user_id). The agent gains no additional meaning for the undocumented filtering, pagination, or ordering parameters.

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?

Description clearly states 'List contacts with pagination and filters' – a specific verb (list) and resource (contacts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kommo_contacts_get (single contact) or kommo_contacts_create via the verb and resource. It also adds scope details (pagination, filters) making the purpose 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 usage for listing contacts with pagination and filters, and gives parameter-level guidance ('Use query to search by name, phone, or email'). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., kommo_contacts_get for a single contact, or kommo_leads_list for leads), nor any exclusions. Usage is implied but not prescribed.

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