Contacts Get Contact

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of return behavior, error cases, permissions, or what 'get' entails. It contributes zero transparency beyond the structured 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 short but not meaningfully concise; it is boilerplate that restates the tool name. It does not front-load actionable information, and the single sentence does not earn its place because it adds no operational value.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, a complete description could be very brief, e.g., 'Retrieves a contact by its contact_id.' This description provides none of that essential context, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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%, and the description provides no meaning for the sole required parameter, contact_id. The agent gets no help understanding what format or semantics contact_id should have, leaving the schema title 'Contact Id' as the only information.

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 merely restates the tool name ('contacts_get_contact') and adds boilerplate about being exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP. It never states what the tool actually does, such as retrieving a contact by ID, and offers no differentiation from sibling tools like contacts_list_contacts or contacts_search_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?

There is no usage guidance at all. The description does not say when to use this tool instead of contacts_list_contacts, contacts_search_contacts, or other contact-related tools. The need for a contact_id is only implied by the schema, not explained.

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