get_contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It states that it returns a list and supports search, which is clear. It does not disclose pagination behavior (though limit/offset are in the schema), response format, or potential side effects (none expected). For a read-only list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentence, front-loading the primary action and resource. It includes the key search functionality without any filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 simple list tool, the description is adequate. It mentions the resource and search capability. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not hint at the structure of the returned contacts or any unusual constraints. For a straightforward GET operation, this is minimal but sufficient.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (limit, query, offset), and the coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal value by restating the search capability ('search by name, email, phone'), which echoes the query parameter description. No new parameter-level information is introduced.

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 resource (JivoSite contacts) and the verb (get a list). It also specifies the supported search criteria (name, email, phone), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chats or get_agents. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 usage context is implied by the resource name and description: it is for retrieving contacts. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other tools, nor any mention of filtering options or prerequisites. The description is sufficient for an obvious list tool but lacks explicit alternative routing.

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