hcm_get_contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as error behavior, required permissions, or exact payload returned. It merely restates the operation without adding transparency beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise, though arguably under-specified for a tool in a large API surface.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the one-sentence description leaves the agent without knowledge of the return shape, potential workspaces, or error semantics. It is sufficient only for a trivially obvious GET, which is not the case given the broad sibling set.

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?

Input schema has contactId as an untyped string with no description; schema coverage is 0%. Description says 'by id' which adds little beyond the parameter name. It does not clarify ID format, source, or distinguish it from other IDs in the system.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'contact', with retrieval by ID. This distinguishes it from hcm_search_contacts (search vs direct id lookup) and other get_* tools, though it doesn't elaborate on the contact 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus hcm_search_contacts or other lookup tools. It does not state prerequisites, alternative tools, or conditions that would select this tool.

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