get_contact

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction exists. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds little extra value.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and resource, then specifies the parameter. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and parameter. However, it lacks information about what the tool returns (expected response structure) and error handling (e.g., if wa_id not found). For a get operation, mentioning the return object would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by explaining wa_id as 'WhatsApp ID, e.g. international phone number without +'. This compensates well for the schema gap, clarifying the expected format and value. A slight deduction for not providing explicit validation rules or examples.

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 clearly states it retrieves a single contact by wa_id, specifying the exact identifier format. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_contacts (which lists all contacts) and create/update/delete contacts.

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 description implies usage when you have a specific wa_id, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives or mention when not to use it. For example, it could advise using list_contacts when the wa_id is unknown. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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