get_contact

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the required `contacts:read` permission, which is genuinely useful pre-call context. It says nothing about what the response contains, what happens for a missing or inaccessible id, or rate limits, leaving real behavioral gaps for a read tool with no 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?

Very short and front-loaded, with permission, endpoint, and tag on separate lines so the agent can scan it quickly. The opening 'Get Contact' line duplicates the tool name and earns little, but overall there is no 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?

For a simple single-resource read with one well-documented parameter, the definition is minimally sufficient: it states the operation, permission, and endpoint. With no output schema, the missing description of the returned contact object and error cases is a noticeable gap, though a moderate one for a trivial getter.

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?

Only one parameter (id) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The endpoint template confirms id is a path parameter, but the description adds no format, type, or lookup semantics beyond the schema's '(path parameter)' note.

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 restates the name ('Get Contact') and adds the concrete endpoint GET /api/v1/contacts/{id}, which does signal retrieval of a single contact by id. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling get_contacts (list) or get_contact_notes, so the agent must infer the single-vs-collection distinction from the endpoint path alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_contacts for listing or get_contact_notes for related data. The agent is left to infer selection criteria from path shape and tool names alone.

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