Get Contacts By BusinessId

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by exposing the HTTP method '[GET ...]' and the auth requirement 'Scopes: contacts.readonly'. It could include response/pagination behavior, but that is minor given the strong annotation coverage.

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 a single, dense sentence containing the operation, endpoint, and required scope. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant prose.

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 five parameters, two required, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, this description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It leaves the role of locationId unexplained and says nothing about what response shape will come back or how pagination works.

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 only 40% and the description adds almost no parameter meaning beyond what the schema names. The endpoint clarifies that businessId is a path parameter, but it never explains the required locationId, the query param, or the meaning of skip and limit. This is a significant gap for actually invoking the tool.

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 names a specific operation and resource, 'Get Contacts By BusinessId', and pins it to an exact endpoint, 'GET /contacts/business/{businessId}'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling contact tools like contacts_get_contact or contacts_get_contacts because it identifies the businessId filter.

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 context is implied by the name and endpoint: an agent would use this when it has a businessId and needs the contacts associated with it. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over contacts_get_contacts or contacts_search_contacts_advanced, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the listed scope.

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