List consultation requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' and 'filter by status' convey a read-only query operation and the contact-form source is useful, but the description does not mention pagination, ordering, status match semantics, or whether any side effects occur.

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 direct sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The description efficiently states what is listed and how filtering works.

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, this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves gaps: valid status values are only examples, limit behavior is not described, and there is no pointer to single-record or follow-up consultation tools. Naming get_consultation_request as the alternative would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the status parameter with examples and notes that statuses are site-defined, but it says nothing about the limit parameter, its default, or its bounds. This is only partial compensation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it lists inbound consultation/demo requests submitted via the site's contact form. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_consultation_request (single record), list_content, and list_job_postings.

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 implies a read/query use case and mentions filtering by status, but it never explicitly names alternatives or conditions for choosing this over get_consultation_request or reply_to_consultation. Some usage context is present, but there is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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