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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail by disclosing that the response bundles recent activity and upcoming events, but says nothing about behavior for unknown ids or data volume.

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, front-loaded with what you get, followed by how to obtain the id. The id-source list is duplicated verbatim from the schema, which is the only wasted content.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the one required parameter is fully specified. The extra note about bundled activity/events plus id provenance is enough for an agent to call this correctly; only error behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as a uuid with its sources, so the description's id-provenance sentence largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies; no additional format or validation semantics are contributed.

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?

Names a specific resource and states the payload precisely: 'Full contact record plus recent activity and upcoming events.' This differentiates it from the list/search siblings by promising a complete single-record view, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 gives a real prerequisite chain — obtain the id from find_contact, list_contacts, or search_leads — which is useful routing information. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over list_contacts/find_contact or what happens on an invalid/missing id, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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