get_contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — it says nothing about error behavior when the id doesn't exist, permissions required, or what a contact record contains.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('One contact by id.') largely restates the first instead of earning its place with new information. Two sentences where one well-built sentence would carry the same payload.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, and there is no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values in depth. However, nothing indicates what identifying key 'id' refers to (CRM contact id vs. external id) or what the agent gets back, leaving a small but real gap for a retrieval tool.

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% (the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Numeric id.'), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no meaning such as id source, format constraints, or what happens with an unknown id; 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get a contact') plus the addressing mode ('One contact by id'), so an agent knows this is a single-record retrieval. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_contacts, get_account, or upsert_contact, which is the one thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

The phrase 'One contact by id' weakly implies 'use this when you have an id and need exactly one contact', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. With list_contacts and upsert_contact in the sibling list, the agent must infer the routing decision on its own.

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