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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned sub-resources (addresses, phones, emails, custom fields) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about missing-contact behavior or permissions.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the namespace, the operation and the identifier, then lists returns. No filler.

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 one-parameter read tool where annotations carry the safety profile and no output schema exists, the description adequately covers both what is fetched and what comes back. Only error/not-found behavior is unmentioned, which is minor.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 0%, so the description has to compensate. Saying "by UUID" conveys the identifier's semantic origin, but the schema's regex pattern already fixes the format, so little is added beyond that.

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 (get), resource (contact), and scope (one, by UUID), plus the payload shape (addresses, phones, emails, custom fields). "One contact by UUID" implicitly separates it from lawcus_list_contacts and lawcus_search, though no sibling is named.

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: needing a single contact identified by UUID. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over lawcus_list_contacts or lawcus_search, nor what to do when the UUID is unknown.

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