list_received_contact_requests

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns only pending contact requests (not all received), is a read operation, and provides pagination. It could mention if requests are sorted or if any filtering applies, but it adequately covers the core behavior.

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 concise (4 short sentences) with clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without 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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, state (pending), and pagination. No gaps given the low complexity.

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 input schema has 0% coverage, but the description explains both parameters (page and page_size) as optional pagination controls, which adds meaningful context beyond the schema types.

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 states the tool lists 'received contact requests' and specifies that it returns pending ones needing approval or rejection. It distinguishes from siblings like list_sent_contact_requests by the direction (received vs sent) and status (pending).

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 indicates this tool is for viewing pending requests that require action (approval or rejection). It implicitly guides the user to use this tool when they want to see incoming requests needing response, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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