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 discloses the required OAuth scope (contacts.readonly), implying a read-only operation. While it does not detail side effects (none expected), it adequately conveys the tool's safe, non-destructive nature.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, alternative tool, and authentication requirement. No redundancy or filler.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and authentication. For a simple fetch tool, the description is fully complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema provides, resulting in minimal added value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with 'Fetch a single contact with all details,' using a specific verb and resource. It lists included data fields (emails, phones, orgs, addresses) and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_contacts (which returns summaries) and manage_contact (for create/update).

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this when you already have a contact ID from list_contacts or search_contacts and need the full record.' It also directs to manage_contact for creating/updating, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to instructions.

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