volkern_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 the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 action ('Get detailed information'). There is zero waste—every word contributes directly to the purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential response formats, or error cases. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent guessing about return values and behavior.

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%, with the single parameter 'contactId' documented as 'The contact's unique ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 ('detailed information about a specific contact'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling 'volkern_list_contacts' by specifying retrieval of a single contact by ID rather than listing multiple contacts. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other 'get_' tools like 'volkern_get_lead' beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid contact ID), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk retrieval), or explicit alternatives like 'volkern_list_contacts' for listing multiple contacts. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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