accelo_get_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: it does not say what happens when the ID is not found, whether the response is a single object, or any auth/rate-limit behavior. Only the read nature is implied by 'Get'.

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?

Terse and front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first line with no wasted words. The Args block is boilerplate but compact, so nothing meaningful is padded.

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 simple single-record getter with no output schema, the minimum viable description is present, but the absence of any return-shape or error semantics leaves it incomplete. Given how simple the operation is, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 must compensate, and it only offers 'id: Contact ID' and 'fields: Additional fields to return'. The 'fields' note gives some meaning (it selects additional return fields, not filters), but the 'id' gloss is essentially tautological and no format or syntax for 'fields' is given.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get a single contact by ID'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling create/update/deactivate/list contact tools. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the 'single by ID' framing makes the distinction implicit and readable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as accelo_list_contacts for browsing versus this tool for a known ID. For a get-by-ID tool the use case is inferable, but nothing is stated.

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