get_contact_topics

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP method and endpoint, indicating a read-only operation, but it does not mention response shape, error conditions, or whether subscriptions are returned in any particular order.

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?

A single concise sentence that names the action, resource, and endpoint with no filler. The essential scoping information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read operation, the description gives enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear notion of 'topic subscriptions', though a bit more detail on the response would make 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?

The schema already documents contact_id with 100% coverage grating, so the description adds no parameter detail beyond what is available. The endpoint does illustrate how the parameter is used, which is a small bonus.

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 'Get' with a clear resource ('a contact's topic subscriptions') and includes the endpoint. This distinguishes it from the sibling update_contact_topics and from generic list_topics without ambiguity.

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 GET method and resource scope imply this is the read-only counterpart to update_contact_topics, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is inferable but not directly guided.

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