ads_interest_contact_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the safety profile (read-only, no contact side effects), which is the most important behavioral fact here. It says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond the implicit limit, default scoping (project_id defaults to 'neron'), or what a returned record contains — material for a 9-parameter read.

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 purpose and followed by the safety constraint; neither sentence is filler. It is perhaps over-compressed for a nine-parameter tool, but there is no padding or redundancy.

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 nine optional parameters, five enums, no annotations and no output schema, two sentences leave the agent without filter semantics, default project scoping, or any sense of the result shape. The safety note is valuable but the definition is substantially under-specified for this surface area.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and it explains none of them. Nothing clarifies that status/channel/category/contact_type/consent_status/outreach_eligibility act as filters, what 'channel' is a free-form name of, or what limit caps — the agent must reverse-engineer semantics from bare enum values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List public discovery candidates from the local interest registry'), which tells an agent this is a read of a curated candidate pool rather than a research/contact tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as ads_interest_research_post_list or ads_interest_research_stats_list, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'This is read-only and never contacts anyone' sets a clear boundary and implies this is the inspection tool rather than the outreach one (contrast ads_interest_contact_upsert). However, it names no alternative and gives no condition for choosing this over the sibling interest/research listing tools, leaving selection to inference.

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