get_contact_id

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists possible error codes ('noent', 'exists', 'no_match'), which adds transparency about failure modes. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or rate limits, which are typical for GET-like operations.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by error codes. It avoids redundancy but could be more structured (e.g., explicit usage notes). Ideal for a simple tool, no wasted words.

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 simple single-parameter tool and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose and error codes adequately. However, it lacks contextual details like id format or when to use this over similar tools, leaving minor gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'id'. It does not explain the format, length, or any constraints of the id parameter, leaving the agent with only the schema's type definition.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns the ContactEntry with the given id, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_contact and get_contact_contact_id_numbers_addresses_urls_emails by focusing on a single id lookup.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_contact). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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