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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top by disclosing the breadth of the payload (consent and provenance, tags, typed fields, events, conversations, journeys, Stripe subscriptions), warning the agent that the response is rich and potentially large. It stops short of mentioning permissions, rate limits, or behavior for unknown ids.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the identity of the resource and then a compact colon-style list of what is returned. Every listed item conveys something an agent could not infer from the name, so nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of previewing the return value, and it does so by enumerating the included sections. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete; the only gap is undefined behavior for a missing or invalid contactId.

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% and the single contactId parameter is already documented with its source (search_contacts). The description adds no syntax, format, or id-provenance detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource precisely ("One contact's profile") and enumerates the profile's constituent data, so an agent knows this is a single-contact detail fetch rather than a list. It does not explicitly contrast with the closely named sibling get_contact_panel or with search_contacts, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative in the description. The only routing signal lives in the input schema ("Contact id from search_contacts"), which the description itself never references, so an agent must infer that this is the follow-up call after a search.

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