List contact-form submissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only; doesn't consume credits,' which communicates the safety profile and side-effect-free nature. It also lists the returned fields, adding transparency about the output. It doesn't mention pagination behavior, but the schema covers page/page_size parameters.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by read-only/credit disclosure and search usage. Every sentence serves a distinct informative purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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 listing tool with no output schema and optional parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral and return information (fields list, read-only, credit usage, search behavior). It doesn't describe the response format in detail, but the enumerated fields give a strong hint, and the schema handles parameter validation.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it repeats the search substring-matching details in different wording but doesn't introduce new semantics for page or page_size. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource ('contact-form submissions') along with the fields returned (id, email, subject, message, data). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_galleries or list_blog_posts.

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?

It provides clear context by stating this lists the project's captured contact-form submissions and gives specific usage for the search parameter ('Use search= to substring-match against email, subject, or message'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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