Contact Spam Check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the check is read-only, what spam-detection service or heuristics are used, whether it has side effects (e.g., flagging/marking the message), or any rate limits. The only behavioral hint is the word 'Check', which is weak.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter description coverage, the description leaves the agent without enough context about the one required input or the tool's side-effect profile.

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% and the single parameter 'message_id' has no description anywhere. The description never clarifies that this is the ID of a contact message (versus a form, node, or user ID), leaving a real ambiguity an agent could get wrong.

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 ('Check'), resource ('contact message'), and outcome ('is spam'), which is more than a tautology of the title. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the contact_message_list/get/delete siblings by describing a classification action, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run this check, on which message states it applies to, or what to do with the result. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the presence of contact_message_* siblings.

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