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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose potential error behaviors (e.g., invalid ID), authorization requirements, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or ambiguity.

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 get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what the response looks like or how to handle non-existent contacts. Given its low complexity, the gap is moderate; it does not inspire confidence in error handling or return structure.

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?

The schema defines a single 'contactId' string parameter with no description. The tool description adds the context that this is the contact's ID, which aligns with the parameter name. This provides marginal added meaning, but no additional detail such as format or uniqueness is given. Given the schema coverage is 0%, the description does not fully compensate.

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 'Get a CRM contact by ID' uses a specific verb (get) and clearly identifies the resource (CRM contact) and the means (by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_contacts, which likely search by criteria rather than a unique identifier.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you have a contact ID and need the full contact record. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like search_contacts for query-based retrieval, so it stops at implied usage.

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