Get Relay Contact Card

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only adds the 'authenticated Agent's' scope. It does not disclose how the optional handle changes behavior, whether it can retrieve another agent's card, or what the returned contact card contains. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a getter with an optional parameter.

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, clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition beyond the title. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting useful parameter and usage context.

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?

Despite the simple schema and supportive annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool with an optional parameter and no output schema. It fails to clarify the meaning of 'handle', the return shape, or how this fits with sibling contact-card operations, making it insufficient for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'handle' parameter at all. Since the description must compensate for the undocumented schema and does not, an agent cannot determine what value to pass or whether passing a handle is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and identifies the resource ('Relay Contact Card') with an ownership qualifier ('authenticated Agent's'), which separates it from mutating siblings like relay_set_contact_card and relay_update_contact_card. It loses a point because the optional 'handle' parameter is not mentioned, making the exact scope slightly ambiguous.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the related contact-card tools, such as relay_set_contact_card, relay_update_contact_card, or relay_share_contact_card. The annotations imply a safe read operation, but the description itself provides no context for choosing this tool or excluding alternatives.

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