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 states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, or what happens when invalid IDs/properties are provided. For a read operation with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this lacks important behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys core functionality without unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the main purpose. Could potentially benefit from breaking into multiple sentences for clarity about parameters, but overall well-structured and concise.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return format, error conditions, authentication needs, or provide examples. While it states the basic purpose, it leaves too many contextual gaps for effective agent 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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'by ID with specific properties and associations' which hints at the three parameters' purposes, but doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., what valid contact IDs look like), property naming conventions, or association behavior. It adds some semantic value but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like crm_list_objects or crm_search_contacts by focusing on retrieval by ID with optional property/association inclusion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from crm_get_object or crm_get_company which follow similar patterns for other entity types.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crm_search_contacts or crm_get_object. The description implies usage for retrieving a specific contact when you have its ID, but doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison to batch operations like crm_batch_create_contacts. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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