dynadot_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 does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. The minimum viability is present, but significant gaps exist.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it omits useful details that could be added without breaking conciseness. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but front-loads only the basic purpose.

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 the simplicity (1 param, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the record's content or how the ID relates to other tools. More context is needed for effective tool selection.

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%. The description adds 'by ID' but does not explain the contactId parameter's format, constraints, or how to obtain it. For a single-parameter tool with no schema description, more guidance is needed.

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 'Retrieve a single contact record by ID' clearly states the verb (retrieve), the resource (contact record), and the key (by ID). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like dynadot_contact_list (list), dynadot_create_contact (create), etc.

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 such as dynadot_contact_list or dynadot_edit_contact. The description implies usage through the resource name but provides no explicit context or exclusions.

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