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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the payload composition — recent activity and upcoming events accompany the record. It does not mention behavior for a stale or unknown id, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The return payload is front-loaded and the id-sourcing hint follows, matching the order an agent needs to reason about the call.

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?

With an output schema present, return structure need not be spelled out, and the description correctly limits itself to what the call yields and where the input comes from. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid id, rate limits) for a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds provenance meaning by naming the three tools that produce a valid contact_id, which a bare 'uuid' type hint does not convey. A single required parameter keeps the surface trivial.

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?

States the exact payload returned: a full contact record plus recent activity and upcoming events, which is more specific than the generic name 'get_contact' and clearly differentiates it from the find/list siblings that only surface ids. It lacks an explicit verb phrasing, but a retrieval operation 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?

Tells the agent the discovery path: obtain the id from find_contact, list_contacts, or search_leads first. That implicitly frames this as the detail-fetch step after a search, but it never states exclusions or when to prefer update_contact/upsert_contact instead of a read.

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