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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only that the result is a comprehensive aggregate ('full touch history'), and says nothing about behavior when contact_id is not found, or about the size/volume of that history. Beyond annotations, the added behavioral value is thin.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so nothing is padded, but it is written in dense telegraphese with no verb and a trailing list that reads as an afterthought. Brevity here costs clarity rather than earning it — 'relationship' and 'provenance' are undefined.

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 must characterize the return value, and it partially does by naming the sections of the aggregate (identity, provenance, relationship, postings, touch history). It omits any notion of what happens on a missing/invalid id, which matters for a single-key lookup tool. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 ('e.g. HC-0001'), so the schema already carries the burden. The description mentions nothing about contact_id format, lookup semantics, or alternate identifiers. Baseline 3 applies when the schema is complete and the description adds no extra meaning.

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 enumerates what the payload contains (identity, provenance, relationship, postings, touch history), which signals a single-record aggregate read. But there is no verb and no explicit statement that it fetches one contact by id, and it never distinguishes itself from hunt_contacts or crm_get_contact. An agent must infer 'get' from the tool name alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. With hunt_contacts (list), crm_get_contact, and hunt_update_contact in the sibling set, the description gives no rule for choosing this tool or any prerequisite/ordering hint. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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