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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Reads' implies a read-only operation, and it discloses that the result includes the fiche, sender addresses, and field provenance, but it does not mention permissions, error behavior (e.g. unknown contact_id), or whether any side effects exist.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. The phrasing 'whole' and 'fiche' is slightly informal but efficient; every clause contributes to scope and 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?

For a simple read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sketch of what is returned (fiche, addresses, provenance) and implies read-only behavior. However, it leaves gaps around error handling, response shape, and any access constraints, which matters more because no output schema or annotations exist to fill them.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already clearly documents contact_id and even references list_contacts. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('one contact'), and clarifies scope by saying 'one' rather than a list, which distinguishes it from list_contacts. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the singular scope is clear enough for an agent to understand its purpose.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Reads one contact whole' suggests it is the tool for fetching a single contact's full record, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to use list_contacts or search_conversations instead, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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