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 useful behavior beyond that — that the response contains all fields and that include embeds related records — but says nothing about what happens if the id doesn't exist, permission scoping, or the payload-size cost of requesting many includes.

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 sentences, zero waste: the core behavior and the optional include capability are front-loaded, and the endpoint reference is a compact anchor. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 burden of describing the return and does so ('all its fields' plus optional embedded relations). For a 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is essentially sufficient, though a note on missing-id behavior or include payload cost would close the last gap.

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%, so both contact_id and include are already documented, making the 3 baseline. The description's list of embeddable relations (notes, tasks, appointments, deals, sales_accounts, owner, sales_activities) largely restates the enum and the schema's own 'Related records to embed' text, adding little beyond naming examples.

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 and resource — 'One contact by id with all its fields' — and names the underlying endpoint GET /contacts/{id}, so it's immediately distinguishable from get_account, get_deal, or list_contacts. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search/lookup, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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: you must already have a contact_id, and include is described as optional. The description never says when to prefer this over freshsales_search or freshsales_lookup, nor when to add include versus making a separate related-record call. The enumeration of include targets gives some hint about intent but no explicit conditionals.

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