clio_get_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens on failure, or any side effects. Lacks behavioral transparency.

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 concise with three sentences and no redundant information. However, it prioritizes technical routing over functional clarity, which slightly reduces its effectiveness for an agent.

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 tool is a 'get' operation with output schema present, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., contact details). It also does not explain prerequisites or authentication beyond the routing hint. Completeness is low.

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 schema has one parameter 'arguments' with 0% description coverage. The description adds 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify expected keys or structure. This is insufficient to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states it's a 'get_contact' operation, which via the name implies retrieving a contact, but does not explicitly say 'retrieves a contact' or describe its purpose. It focuses on routing details rather than functionality. Among many sibling clio_* tools, it does not differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clio_list_contacts or clio_create_contact. The description does not provide any contextual usage hints.

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