get_contact_list_detail

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 only mentions pagination and search but does not disclose behavior such as default page size, sorting order, handling of invalid list_id, or whether the response includes total counts. This is minimal disclosure beyond what the input schema already provides.

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: a title-like first part and a brief explanation. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose, though the Spanish language may slightly reduce clarity for English-speaking agents.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the main functionality (get contacts with pagination and search) but does not mention error handling, default behavior, or the structure of the response. It is sufficient for basic usage but lacks depth.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds 'paginación y búsqueda' which restates the schema's page and search parameters without additional meaning. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for missing schema detail.

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 retrieves contacts from a specific list with pagination and search. The verb 'obtiene' (gets) and resource 'lista de contactos' (contact list) are specific, and the inclusion of pagination and search distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_contact_lists or add_contacts_to_list.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided. The context is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no guidance on alternatives or prerequisites. The agent must infer from sibling names that this is for viewing details versus other operations like adding or removing contacts.

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