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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered and not repeated. The description adds genuinely new context about MCP approval requirements being administrator-configurable while business workflow approvals always apply. It does not say what happens for an unknown or deleted contact ID, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and free of bulk. The opening 'Use this when working with RetailHardHat contacts records in the connected organization' is partly redundant with the following 'Read an organization contact', but the total is three sentences and nothing is egregious.

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 values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the definition is largely sufficient for a one-parameter fetch. The missing pieces are minor: no guidance on sourcing contactId and no failure semantics for a missing record.

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 the single parameter, so the description is required to compensate and does not: contactId is never mentioned. The schema itself supplies a uuid format and regex, which constrains shape but not meaning or provenance. No hint that the ID comes from list_contacts or create_contact.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read an organization contact'), which is unambiguous and pairs cleanly with the title. It scopes the tool to RetailHardHat contacts in the connected organization. It does not explicitly contrast with the obvious sibling list_contacts, but the read-one semantics distinguish it well enough.

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?

'Use this when working with RetailHardHat contacts records' gives a broad usage context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives (e.g. use list_contacts to find a contactId, update_contact to modify). The agent must infer that this is a single-record fetch keyed by an existing ID.

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