crm_get_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving 'specific properties and associations' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling for invalid IDs, or what happens if properties/associations arrays are empty. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 core purpose ('Get a single contact by ID') and adds necessary detail ('with specific properties and associations'). There's no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for a 3-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, error handling, and output format. For a read operation with optional filtering parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID with specific properties and associations', which maps to the three parameters (contactId, properties, associations), adding meaning about their purpose. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., what valid contactId looks like, what properties are available, or how associations work), leaving significant gaps despite the low schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'a single contact by ID', specifying it retrieves 'specific properties and associations'. It distinguishes from siblings like crm_list_objects or crm_search_contacts by focusing on a single contact retrieval, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from crm_get_object or crm_get_company which follow similar patterns.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crm_search_contacts (for multiple contacts) or crm_get_object (for generic object retrieval). The description implies usage for single contact retrieval but lacks explicit context about prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison with sibling tools.

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