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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that organization roles are included in the response — but says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist or whether permissions are required to read roles.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource, the lookup key and the extra returned data are all packed into one clause.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the essential return content (contact plus organization roles). Minor gaps remain around not-found behavior, which is typical for a lookup tool.

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%, so only the schema constraints (uuid format and pattern) document contactId. The description's 'by id' confirms the parameter is a lookup key for a single contact but adds no guidance on sourcing a valid id or on the zero-UUID sentinel case.

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: 'Get one contact by id, including its organization roles.' The 'one contact' phrasing cleanly separates it from the list/plural siblings such as vitalli_list_contacts, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single contact when you already have its id. The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no pointer to vitalli_list_contacts as the way to obtain an id, and no mention of what to do instead for bulk retrieval.

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