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 the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it's idempotent. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words or redundant information. Efficiently communicates the essential operation in a compact form.

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 the return value format, error handling, or provide enough detail about parameters (especially the 'associations' enum values). The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 descriptions. The description mentions 'by ID' (mapping to contactId) and 'with specific properties and associations' (hinting at the 'properties' and 'associations' parameters), adding some semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain what 'properties' or 'associations' represent, their formats, or the enum values for 'associations'.

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 action ('Get'), resource ('a single contact'), and key mechanism ('by ID with specific properties and associations'). It distinguishes from generic retrieval by specifying the ID-based lookup and optional property/association filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_get_object' or 'crm_search_contacts' which might also retrieve contacts.

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. The description implies it's for retrieving a known contact by ID, but doesn't mention when to choose this over 'crm_get_object' (which might handle multiple object types) or 'crm_search_contacts' (for unknown IDs). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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