bitrix_get_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' signals a read-only retrieval with no side effects, and 'full information' suggests a complete contact record is returned. However, it does not disclose error behavior, permissions, response format, or what 'full information' concretely includes.

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, front-loaded sentence containing the operation, target resource, and input criterion. There is no redundant filler; every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 lookup, the description is minimally viable: it names the input (ID) and the broad output scope (full information). Yet there is no output schema and no description of response shape, not-found behavior, or how this differs from related lookup tools like bitrix_find_contact or bitrix_list_contacts.

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 100%: the contactId parameter is already described as 'ID контакта.' The tool description only restates this with 'по ID' and adds no additional semantic detail, so the schema carries the parameter documentation weight.

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 'Получить полную информацию о контакте Bitrix24 по ID' clearly states a specific verb (get), resource (Bitrix24 contact), and identifier (by ID). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like bitrix_list_contacts, bitrix_find_contact, and bitrix_update_contact.

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 phrase 'по ID' implies the intended use: when a contact ID is already known and full contact details are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as using bitrix_find_contact when the ID is unknown.

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