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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns every field on the contact record, includes recent relationship touches by default, and explains that include_timeline=false skips a second read. No contradiction with 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary use case, then proceeds to the required parameter and return behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or repetition of schema details beyond what adds value.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only detail tool: it explains when to use it, where to get the required id, what fields are returned, and how the optional timeline parameter affects behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately compensates by describing the return payload.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds important semantic context beyond the schema: it identifies where the `id` value comes from (connections_contacts_list), clarifies that timeline data is fetched by default, and explains the purpose of include_timeline. This helps the agent use the parameters correctly.

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 action (get details for one specific contact) and resource (contact record), and explicitly distinguishes it from the list sibling by requiring an `id` from connections_contacts_list. It clearly communicates what the tool returns: full contact fields plus recent touches.

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 when-to-use guidance ('when the member asks for details about one specific contact') and tells the agent to pass the `id` from connections_contacts_list. It does not explicitly contrast with connections_contacts_list beyond that, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over its sibling.

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