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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is established without the description. The description reinforces this with 'GET /contacts/{identifier}' and notes the identifier accepts email or id, but adds no behavioral traits beyond that — no error behavior for missing contacts, no pagination/return-shape notes.

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 core purpose comes first. The trailing REST endpoint reference is compact but largely redundant with the tool name and annotations, so not perfectly economical.

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 readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The absence of any note about the response shape is a minor gap given there is no output schema, but low risk here.

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 in the schema. The description's 'identifier (email or id)' restates the schema rather than adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('a single contact (customer)') and clarifies scope with 'single', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling reamaze_list_contacts. An agent can tell this is a by-identifier retrieval rather than a listing without opening either schema.

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 implied: fetch one contact when you already have its email or id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., use reamaze_list_contacts to search when you lack an identifier), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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