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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds non-annotation context: the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with access to this app) and the fact that returned IDs are reusable inputs for other tools. It does not contradict 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but sentence two ("Returns one contact with its phones, addresses, inquiries, appointments, jobs, notes and open activities") nearly restates sentence one verbatim, which is wasted space. The remaining sentences each carry new information (pre-write usage, ID chaining, auth).

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 no output schema, the description correctly describes the return payload and the auth prerequisite, which is what an agent needs for a single-param read tool. Minor gap: no note on behavior when the contact_id does not exist.

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%, so the single parameter (contact_id, sourced from search_contacts) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further format, constraint, or sourcing detail beyond that 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (contact), and enumerates exactly what the record contains: phones, addresses, inquiries, appointments, jobs, notes, open activities. This distinguishes it from sibling search_contacts (which lists) and get_job (which fetches a different resource) without opening any schema.

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 it before writing, so your agent sees what is already there" gives a clear conditional use case, and "IDs in the result feed the other tools" explains downstream dependency. It stops short of naming the alternative for contact lookup (marketsharp_search_contacts) or any exclusion condition.

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