mautic_check_contact_dnc

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so extra credit goes to the non-obvious disclosure that 'DNC writes clear the read cache' – an agent learns results may be invalidated by unrelated write tools. The GET endpoint note also clarifies the data actually comes from the contact record. Return shape is still unspecified, keeping it below 5.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: purpose first, endpoint second, parameter behavior third, caching caveat last. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering behavior, and a caching caveat. The main omission is any indication of the return shape or what an empty result means, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 50%: 'channel' is already documented in the schema with the same meaning, and 'contact_id' is undocumented but self-evident by name. The description's 'Optional channel keeps only that channel' largely restates the schema, adding only the explicit 'optional' framing. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read a contact's doNotContact entries') and even names the underlying endpoint, so an agent can distinguish it from the write siblings mautic_add_contact_dnc and mautic_remove_contact_dnc by the 'Read' framing. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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 only implied: 'Read' signals this is the retrieval counterpart to add/remove DNC, and 'Optional channel' hints at the filtered case. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_contact or the DNC write tools, and no prerequisite or pre-check guidance.

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