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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the payload shape, including that 'recent conversations' are pulled in as part of the response — useful scope information not derivable from the schema, especially since there is no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the return-content summary comes first. The second sentence is mildly redundant with the tool name but cheap and unambiguous.

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 single-parameter read tool with safety annotations but no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned fields. Only the absence of routing guidance against the search/list siblings keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

With one parameter (contact_id) at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents it fully. The description adds only the 'GET /contacts/{id}' hint that the id is a path parameter; no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond the schema's exclusiveMinimum/maximum.

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 resource (a single contact) and enumerates what it carries — emails, phones, company, custom fields, recent conversations — plus the underlying route GET /contacts/{id}. This distinguishes it implicitly from list_contacts and search_contacts, though it never names those siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to pick this over helpwise_search_contacts or helpwise_list_contacts, and no prerequisite (e.g. needing a known contact_id) is stated. The get-by-id semantics are only inferable from the name and the URL template.

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