list_contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered without the description. The description adds only the 'leads' framing and the workspace scope, not pagination or return-shape behavior. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a baseline 3.

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 with zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the modifier. Efficient, though the brevity contributes to the under-specification noted elsewhere.

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 paginated list tool with a cursor/limit pair and no output schema, the description omits how results are paged and how many come back, which an agent needs to call it correctly. It is incomplete despite its compact subject.

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%, so the description carries the burden for three parameters. It only gestures at the 'platform' filter and says nothing about 'limit' or 'cursor' (pagination), leaving two of three parameters entirely undiscussed despite no schema help.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('List contacts (leads) in the workspace') and clarifies the 'leads' synonym, which is useful terminology bridging. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_contact or explain its relationship to list_conversations/list_messages.

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?

Only 'Filter by platform' hints at usage. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over get_contact, and no mention of pagination behavior an agent must handle. The implied context is thin.

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