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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already declares this is a safe read, so the description's burden is light. It adds no context about not-found behavior or return shape, but for a single-record fetch with a matched annotation this is adequate.

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?

One sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient, though it verges on under-specification rather than exemplary conciseness.

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 with full schema coverage and a matching readOnlyHint annotation, nothing essential is missing; only error/not-found behavior is unstated, a minor 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as a numeric string preserving 64-bit precision. The description adds nothing beyond 'by ID', which is sufficient given the schema already carries the semantics.

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) and resource (contact) with the singular scope 'one ... by ID', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_contacts. The only shortfall is that the differentiation relies on the word 'one' rather than naming the alternative.

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?

'by ID' implies the caller must already have a contact ID, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus propertyware_list_contacts for lookup, or what to do when the ID is unknown. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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