get_contact_person

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

The description states it returns data, aligning with the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as potential formatting or pagination behavior. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from a bit more detail 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?

The description is minimal and does not explain the return format or what fields are included. With no output schema, more context is needed to fully understand the tool's output. The complexity is low, but completeness is lacking.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond what is in the schema, such as elaborating on the 'with' parameter or explaining the relationship between contact_id and person_id.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('data of specified person'), clearly indicating the tool retrieves a contact person. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_contact' or 'get_contact_address', which could cause confusion.

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. For example, there is no mention that this tool is for retrieving a person associated with a contact, as opposed to other 'get' tools for contact-related entities.

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