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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral content: exactly what the response contains (engagement metrics, tags, custom fields, email preferences) and that it is a single-contact read returning the complete object.

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?

Three tightly scoped sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The closing 'Returns the complete contact object' is mildly redundant with the first sentence's field list, a minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so at a high level by enumerating the field groups. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown UUID, which is a small gap for a lookup tool, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter already specifies UUID format, so the description's mention of 'by their UUID' adds no syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (full profile of a single Meisa contact) plus the lookup key (UUID) and the field groups returned. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list/search tools by the singular, ID-keyed scope.

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?

Explicitly says to use it after obtaining an ID via meisa_search_contacts or meisa_list_contacts, naming the two alternative entry points. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. bulk retrieval via meisa_list_contacts), but the routing context is clear.

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