Get Contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which establish the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond those hints: the endpoint is deprecated, the HTTP verb is GET, and the required OAuth scope is contacts.readonly. This helps the agent understand operational constraints that the annotations do not convey.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the key deprecation warning, but it repeats 'DEPRECATED' both in the note and at the end. The markdown link is useful for humans but adds little for an AI agent. Overall it earns a mid score because it is efficient despite minor 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?

For a deprecated tool with strong read-only annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description provides the most critical contextual fact: do not use this, use Search Contacts instead. The lack of an output schema is mitigated because the tool is effectively superseded. It could have mentioned pagination behavior or response shape, but the deprecation guidance makes the description sufficient for agent decision-making.

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 every parameter, which sets the baseline at 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Some schema descriptions are thin (e.g., 'Start Afte' typo and 'Contact Query'), but the description does not compensate for those gaps.

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 operation as 'Get Contacts' with the endpoint 'GET /contacts/', so an agent can tell it is a contact-list retrieval tool. It also names the deprecated status and points to 'Search Contacts' as the replacement, which helps distinguish it from the sibling contacts_search_contacts_advanced. However, it does not describe exactly what contacts are returned or the listing scope beyond the endpoint.

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 gives an explicit usage directive: this endpoint is deprecated and the agent should use the Search Contacts endpoint instead. It names the exact alternative, so there is no ambiguity about when to prefer another tool. This is strong, actionable guidance.

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