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 safety is covered elsewhere. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as error behavior, authorization requirements, or what is returned, and it merely repeats the endpoint path.

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?

It is short, but the first sentence is duplicated verbatim, which is pure waste. The operation ID and describe_operation pointer are front-loaded after that duplication, but the description does not use its limited space to add meaning.

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 retrieval tool with a nested input object, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the endpoint returns or clarify the nested query parameter, leaving the agent with only the raw path.

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% for two parameters, including a nested params object with a required id and an unexplained query object. The path ':id' weakly signals that id identifies the contact, but the description provides no useful semantics for the query parameter or the ID format beyond what is already implied by the endpoint.

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 is essentially a tautological restatement of the tool name and title: it repeats the raw endpoint path 'GET /api/counterparty-contacts/:id' twice and adds no plain-language explanation of what a counterparty contact is. It does at least imply retrieval by ID, but it does not distinguish this from the sibling list tool or explain the returned resource.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_counterparty_contacts_5ca9d58365bed6484cb3e9c7 or the counterparties-by-id contacts endpoint. The only contextual pointer is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas,' which is not a usage condition.

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