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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing what the record contains (emails, phones, addresses, custom fields, owner), which materially helps the agent decide whether this single call suffices instead of chaining other tools.

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?

The first sentence is front-loaded and efficient. The trailing 'LACRM: GetContact' merely restates the title and is redundant rather than harmful, costing it a perfect score.

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 does the minimum needed by summarizing the returned fields, and the tool is a simple one-parameter read. Minor gaps remain — no error behavior for an unknown id, no pagination or size caveats — but nothing critical for correct invocation.

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 is fully documented there (including the string-Uid nuance), so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 (Fetch) and resource (one contact or company record) with an explicit scope of 'one', which implicitly separates it from the list/search siblings. The enumeration of returned field groups makes the action concrete rather than tautological.

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: the singular 'one record' suggests this is for retrieving a known contact_id, but no alternative (e.g. lacrm_search_contacts, lacrm_list_contacts_in_group) or precondition is named. An agent must infer when this beats the search/list siblings.

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