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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context by listing what data the returned record contains, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details (e.g., behavior when contact_id is not found, rate limits). With annotations handling the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and scope, and the second sentence routes to relevant alternatives. Every clause earns its place.

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-only get-by-ID tool with one fully documented parameter, safe annotations, and explicit alternative routing, the description is complete. It lists the expected data fields even though no output schema exists, so an agent can confidently invoke it and interpret the response.

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 100% and the parameter contact_id is already documented as 'UUID of the contact'. The description does not add or need to add further parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Return'), a clear resource ('saved contact record from the database'), and enumerates the exact fields included (name/vocative, headline, company, role, location, language, LinkedIn). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming get_lead_context and list_campaign_queue as the tools for different data, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit routing guidance: use get_lead_context for CRM notes and interaction history, and list_campaign_queue for campaign state. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus alternatives, with no inference required.

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