get_contact_relation

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any side effects. It is consistent with the annotations but adds no value.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is structurally simple and front-loaded, but it is also terse and could include a bit more context (e.g., what the return value is) without losing 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 simple getter with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't explain what a 'contact relation' is or what the response will contain, and since there is no output schema, the description carries more burden than it fulfills.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (contact_relation_id) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and resource ('contact relation'), making the purpose immediately obvious. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_contact or get_contact_group, but the resource name itself provides distinction. Lacks additional scoping context that would warrant a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_contact_relations or search_contact_relations. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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