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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context not in structured fields: the response is one record plus its related tasks, cases, calls, events and documents — a potentially large nested payload an agent should be prepared for. It stops short of noting error behavior or whether related collections are truncated/paginated.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the highest-value information (what comes back alongside the record) is front-loaded before the endpoint detail.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the annotations cover safety. The main remaining gap is failure/empty behavior and whether the related collections can be large or paginated.

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 coverage is 100% with a UUID format and pattern plus a description ('Record id (UUID)'), so the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description only reinforces it via the REST path GET /contacts/{id}/ and adds no format or provenance guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (fetch one full contact record) and clarifies scope by listing the related entities bundled in the response. It implicitly contrasts with cogmento_list_contacts via 'One full contact record', but never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for retrieving a single contact by id rather than listing them. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the list_contacts alternative, and no note on what to do when the id is unknown or not found.

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