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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds value by scoping the result to a single contact and disclosing the UUID prerequisite and its source tool. It doesn't discuss cost/latency or what happens on an unknown UUID, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns, when to use it, and how to obtain the argument. The most important information (purpose) is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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-value detail is handled structurally; the description still summarizes what the agent will see. With one fully documented parameter, explicit use cases and a prerequisite pointer, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already defines contact_id as a UUID. The description adds provenance guidance ('Find the UUID with `search_contacts`') that the schema does not contain, which is real value beyond the field definition.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns full details for one of the user's job-search contacts') and enumerates the payload (profile, outreach status, linked applications, interaction history). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_contacts, which it explicitly names as the lookup path.

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?

Gives two concrete when-to-use triggers: before drafting outreach/follow-up messages so the message reflects prior conversation, and before interviews to recall who the user knows. It also routes the agent to search_contacts for the required UUID, so the whole call path is spelled out.

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