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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the operation implied by the tool name ('get') and adds no detail about return shape, not-found behavior, organization scoping, or whether any side effects occur. The description is too thin to meaningfully inform an agent beyond what the name already suggests.

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 a short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant words. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and resource. It could be more informative without becoming bloated, but as far as conciseness goes it is efficient.

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 simple two-parameter retrieval tool, the description is minimally viable: an agent can infer that the tool fetches a CRM contact and that organization_id and contact_id are needed. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the absence of explicit return or error behavior is a noticeable gap. It is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds nothing about parameters. The property descriptions are tautological ('contact_id' and 'organization_id'), but the names are self-explanatory and the required fields clearly identify the target contact. The tool description provides no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'get CRM contact.' This clearly indicates retrieval of a single CRM contact and is distinguishable from sibling tools like create, update, delete, and list operations. It does not explicitly differentiate from closely related get variants, but the singular resource plus required contact_id makes intent reasonably clear.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as commsharbor_crm_contacts_list, commsharbor_crm_contacts_create, or commsharbor_crm_contacts_update. It does not mention context, exclusions, or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate. An agent must infer usage purely from naming conventions.

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