get_contact_property

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does convey read-only semantics through 'Retrieve' and the GET verb, but it does not disclose potential 404 behavior, permission requirements, or response shape. For a simple getter this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the endpoint for precision. There is no filler or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity—one required parameter, no nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema—the description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Minor omissions like return format and error conditions are not critical for a standard GET-by-id tool, but would have made it fully complete.

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 lone `id` parameter is already described as 'The contact property id.' The description adds no further semantic meaning beyond the endpoint placeholder, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'contact property by id', and reinforces it with the concrete endpoint 'GET /contact-properties/:id'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_contact_properties, update_contact_property, and delete_contact_property without needing to open schemas.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the intended use case: fetch a single contact property when the id is known. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_contact_properties for enumeration or mention that this is a read-only alternative to update/delete, so the when-not guidance is only implied.

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