contacts_get_contact

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of return format, error conditions, or what exactly constitutes a 'Contact'. Given the annotations, the description contributes minimal additional 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?

At two words, the description is under-specified rather than helpfully concise. It lacks any structured information or meaningful content, and does not front-load any useful nuance. It essentially repeats the tool name.

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 get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate what a Contact is, what fields are returned, or any caveats (e.g., 'returns full contact object'). None of this is present. The description is incomplete even for a low-complexity tool.

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 fully documents the only parameter (contactId with description 'Contact Id'), so 100% schema coverage exists. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a verb ('Get') and resource ('Contact'), which is clear enough but lacks specificity. It doesn't distinguish from other contact tools like 'get_contacts' or 'get_duplicate_contact', and doesn't explicitly state it retrieves by ID (though the parameter implies it). It's not a tautology but is extremely generic.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the contacts domain (e.g., contacts_get_contacts, contacts_search_contacts_advanced), the lack of any context or exclusions is a critical omission.

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