get_contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The note that phones and emails come back as plain lists is genuine format context, but with an output schema present it partially restates structured data, and it says nothing about error behavior for a missing ID.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing clause about list-shaped return values is the only part that could be trimmed given the output schema.

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 read tool with annotations and an output schema, the main missing pieces are the provenance of contact_id and any not-found behavior. Adequate to make the call, but not sufficient to make it reliably on the first attempt.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for contact_id and adds nothing — it never identifies the parameter as a contact identifier or says where an agent would obtain a valid value. A single undocumented parameter leaves a real gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Get one contact' unambiguously identifies a single-record retrieval. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_contacts, so an agent must infer that this is the by-ID lookup rather than the search path.

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?

Usage is only implied by the singular 'one contact' phrasing and the required contact_id — there is no statement about when to prefer this over search_contacts or what to do when the ID is unknown. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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