get_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Fetch'), that output is limited to core properties, and indirectly that deals/tickets are excluded by pointing to get_account_summary. It does not mention error behavior or authorization, but for a single-ID lookup this is reasonable 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?

Two efficient sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the companion-tool guidance in the second sentence. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the tool does, what data it returns (core properties), and how to get a fuller picture. It omits exact response fields and error cases, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the parameter description already explains what contactId is and where it comes from. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond 'by ID,' so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single HubSpot contact by ID') and scopes the result to 'core properties.' This clearly distinguishes it from search_contacts (search vs. fetch) and create_contact (read vs. write).

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?

It gives clear contextual guidance by recommending pairing with get_account_summary when deals/tickets are needed, implying get_contact alone returns only contact data. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond that complementary tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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