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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the permission requirement ('Needs crm:read on the organization'), error behavior ('A foreign or missing id answers 404'), and a non-obvious consent caveat ('Being in the CRM is not permission to email: consent lives in the marketing sub-resource'). It does not describe the return format, but for a simple read that is a minor gap.

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 three sentences with no waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential operational details (permission, error handling, consent). Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the critical aspects: operation type, required permission, error response for missing/foreign IDs, and a consent nuance. It does not describe the response structure, but for a single-contact read that is often inferred. The coverage is sufficient for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are tautological (just the parameter names). The tool description adds no additional meaning to contact_id or organization_id, though it implies contact_id identifies the contact and organization_id identifies the tenant via context. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 states a clear verb ('Reads') and resource ('one contact from the tenant CRM'), immediately distinguishing it from list, create, delete, and update siblings. It also specifies the scope ('tenant CRM') and implies a single record retrieval by ID, which is unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool versus commsharbor_crm_contacts_list or others. It provides context about required permission (crm:read) and a consent caveat, but the selection guidance is only implied by the verb 'Reads one contact' rather than explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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