get_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema — automatic identifier-type detection and a 'resolved' status field — but never says what happens when no contact matches, whether it can create records, or whether any permissions are needed.

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 core purpose and the auto-detection behavior are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the Args block earns its space by supplying examples the schema lacks. The docstring-style formatting is slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns section is redundant but harmless. The real gap is behavioral: for a lookup tool the not-found path matters, and the three overlapping optional parameters create resolution ambiguity that the description doesn't resolve.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it gives concrete examples for phone number, LID, phone JID, and LID JID, and explains that phone_number and phone are backward-compatible aliases for identifier. It does not state that all three are optional/nullable or which one wins when more than one is supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look up a WhatsApp contact') and scopes it to exact identifiers (phone number, LID, full JID), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling search_contacts. It never names the sibling or states the distinction explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the identifier-based framing: use this when you already have an exact identifier. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no reference to search_contacts for fuzzy or name-based lookups, even though that sibling exists and is the obvious alternative.

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