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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior for a missing/unknown id, no indication of what data is returned, no rate-limit or permission context. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral value.

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 three-word sentence with zero waste and the verb front-loaded, but the brevity here is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — there is no second sentence carrying the information an agent actually needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place return contents could be described, and it is silent. For a single-resource fetch in a 100+ tool catalog, the agent cannot tell what fields come back, what error behavior to expect, or why to choose this over list_contacts. Annotations cover safety but not the informational gap.

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 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Contact id'. The description adds no format hints (e.g., UUID vs. phone number vs. internal key) beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 restates the tool name and title almost verbatim ('Get contact' → 'Retrieve a contact') without adding scope or distinguishing it from the many neighboring contact tools (list_contacts, get_contact_topics, update_contact, upsert_contact). An agent learns nothing about what 'a contact' contains or how this differs from fetching contacts in bulk.

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 guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_contacts for enumeration or get_contact_topics for related data, and no prerequisites stated. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'retrieve' plus the required id parameter.

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