get_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a critical safety trait. It also mentions 'full profile,' implying a comprehensive return. However, it doesn't specify behavior for non-existent contacts or error handling. Given the simplicity of a get operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two concise sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with the parameter source. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the input, its provenance, and the read-only nature. It doesn't elaborate on return fields, but 'full profile' is reasonably self-explanatory. Gaps like error responses are minor for this type of 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 schema provides only the type and required status for user_ns. The description adds essential semantic meaning: '`user_ns` from `find_contact` or `list_contacts`.' This tells the agent exactly how to obtain a valid value, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. Without this, the parameter would be ambiguous.

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 tool's action: 'Return the full profile for one contact.' This specifies a single resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_contacts (which lists multiple) and find_contact (which searches). The explicit mention of 'one contact' and 'full profile' precisely defines the scope.

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 clear guidance on where the required parameter comes from: '`user_ns` from `find_contact` or `list_contacts`.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after obtaining a user_ns) and implies alternatives for finding contacts. It doesn't explicitly exclude other uses, but the context is sufficient. The read-only note also indicates safe usage.

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