Get client contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds modest context by stating it wraps Contacts.getAll and Contacts.getNumbers and lists output fields, but it does not disclose pagination, error, or rate behavior.

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 output contract. The first sentence is dense and useful; the second sentence about wrapped methods is mildly informative but not essential, so it is not quite perfect.

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 read-only list with full schema coverage, the description plus annotations provide the core selection and invocation information: resource, returned fields, and safety. It does not specify response shape or pagination, but the low complexity and rich schema/annotations make it sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents client_id, contact_type, and include_numbers. The description echoes the contact types and phone/fax numbers but adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the resource ('contacts under a client') and enumerates returned fields and contact types, so an agent can tell it apart from client-level tools like get_client. It lacks an explicit verb and a named sibling comparison, which keeps it just below the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_client or search_clients. The description implies 'when you need contacts under a client' but never states when/when-not or suggests a sibling tool.

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