list_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only restates the search functionality already present in the query parameter schema; it does not disclose pagination behavior, return shape, whether an empty query returns all contacts, or any permissions/read-only guarantees.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose and search scope are stated efficiently, and every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters, and the tool is a relatively simple read/list operation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain the response shape, pagination semantics, or how to choose this over the sibling 'search' tool, leaving some important context missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which keeps this at the baseline score.

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: 'Search and list contacts in amoCRM.' It also clarifies the searchable fields, which helps an agent understand the tool's scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the broad sibling tool 'search' or from 'get_contact' beyond the list-versus-fetch implication.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool to browse or search contacts across name, phone, and email. No explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over sibling tools such as 'search' or 'list_leads', and no exclusions are mentioned.

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