contacts_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so 'Solo lectura' is largely redundant. However, since there is no output schema, the description adds real value by naming the fields returned (emails, organization, phone), though it omits behavior on unknown resource_name or any error/empty result case.

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?

Four tight clauses, front-loading purpose, then returned data, then usage, then read-only nature. Zero waste.

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 single-param, no-output-schema tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, usage and returned fields adequately. Missing only not-found/error behavior, a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents resource_name with the people/c123456 example. The description reinforces the format but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair (Obtiene el detalle de un contacto) and enumerates the returned fields (emails, organizacion, telefono), plus the identifier format people/c123. It is clearly distinguishable from the single contact sibling contacts_search.

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?

'Usalo tras contacts_search para desambiguar' explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects this tool over it, so no inference is required.

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