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

The description claims it is a 'get' action (read-only), but annotations set 'readOnlyHint' to false, implying the tool may modify state. This is a direct contradiction, reducing transparency to the lowest possible score per instructions.

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 mixes multiple actions (get, upsert, funnel) in one block, which is not ideal for a single tool. The flattened action helps, but the structure could be more streamlined.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description only states that it retrieves a contact, but omits return format, error handling, and the purpose of the optional 'account' and 'fields' parameters. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It explains identifier and identifier_type meaningfully, but does not cover the 'account' or 'fields' parameters for this tool. The mention that 'fields' is for upsert is only partially helpful.

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 clearly states that this tool retrieves a single contact ('busca UM contato') by email or UUID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rdstation_contacts_funnel and rdstation_contacts_upsert. However, the description is cluttered with other action descriptions, slightly reducing clarity.

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 specifies how to identify the contact using identifier_type and identifier, with examples of 'email' and 'uuid'. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the usage context is clear and the required parameters are indicated.

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