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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the data surface returned (companies, tags, address, custom fields) and that lookup is by external identifier, but says nothing about not-found behavior, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with zero waste: the payload contents come first, followed by the endpoint. No boilerplate or repetition of the title.

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's enumeration of returned fields does real work in telling the agent what to expect. It is only slightly short of complete: miss/404 behavior and the fact that a non-primary email will not resolve are unstated, which matters for an openWorld lookup.

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 schema already explains both identifier (UID or email) and meta (return field schema). The description's 'UID or primary email' restates rather than extends the schema, so the baseline 3 for full coverage applies. Note the description adds no hint of the 'primary' email qualifier's implications (e.g., non-primary emails not matching).

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?

Specific verb and resource ('One CRM contact') with the lookup keys (UID or primary email), the fields returned (companies, tags, address, custom fields), and the underlying endpoint GET /contact/{identifier}. It is clearly distinguishable from suitedash_list_contacts (many) and suitedash_get_contact_fields (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 a single contact when you already have a UID or email. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer suitedash_list_contacts for searching, nor what happens when no contact matches. The meta parameter's schema text does route agents to *_fields, but that guidance lives in the schema, not the description.

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