ghl_get_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the response includes all fields, tags, and custom data, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only safety, potential errors (e.g., 404), authentication requirements, or any other behavioral caveats beyond the return payload.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, states the key constraint (by ID), and lists the included data. Every word earns its place with no waste or redundancy.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose and return contents. It lacks explicit error behavior or usage exclusions, but the tool's simplicity keeps the description close to complete. The mention of all fields, tags, and custom data fills the gap left by the missing output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: contactId is described as 'The contact ID'. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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 tool retrieves a single contact by ID, with a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('contact'), and a scope ('single', 'by ID'). It differentiates from siblings like ghl_get_contacts (plural list) and ghl_search_contacts (search-based) by emphasizing the 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 implies the tool should be used when you have a specific contactId, as opposed to listing or searching. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'single contact by ID' phrasing gives clear contextual guidance for use.

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