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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by specifying the categories returned, but it does not disclose return structure, error behavior (e.g., if contact not found), or whether all categories are always populated. It is not contradictory.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. The parenthetical examples provide necessary context without wasting words.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description provides the tool's purpose and content categories but does not explain the return format or edge-case behavior (e.g., empty preferences, missing contact). It is adequate for a simple get but not comprehensive.

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 already describes contact_id as 'The contact ID', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the generic 'for a contact', so it does not exceed the schema 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource 'food preferences for a contact', and lists the categories included (dietary restrictions, allergies, favorites, dislikes). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool food_preferences_upsert (the write counterpart) and other contact-related retrieval tools.

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 when to use the tool (when you need a contact's food preferences) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like food_preferences_upsert. There are no alternative tool mentions or exclusions.

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