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 elsewhere. The description adds zero behavioral context — no note on what is returned, error behavior for an unknown id, or whether nested data is expanded.

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?

Effectively one sentence duplicated, plus an internal operation ID that adds no value to an agent. It is not bloated, but it is under-specified rather than concise — near-zero information density.

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 tool with 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and nested parameters, the description provides essentially nothing an agent needs beyond what the name and annotations already say.

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 the description carries the burden. It never mentions the required 'id' path parameter or the 'query' object; only the raw path template hints at 'id' implicit in the name. An agent must open the schema to learn anything about the parameters.

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 merely restates the tool name/title ('GET /api/contacts/:id') verbatim, twice, without explaining what a contact record contains or how this differs from siblings like get_contacts (list), get_contacts_by_id_associations, or get_contacts_by_id_custom_fields_values.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no mention of alternatives. The only pointer is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which is a schema-lookup hint, not usage guidance for selecting this tool over siblings.

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