contact_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that results are scoped to the bound company and excludes the company itself, which is non-obvious. However, it does not explicitly state the read-only nature, side-effect absence, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving only the 'Get' verb to imply a safe read.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second clarifies the data scope and eliminates a common misunderstanding about the company itself. This is efficient, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 has a rich input schema with full parameter descriptions and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the data domain and scope. It even references server_info for additional context about the bound company. An explicit read-only note or alternative-tool routing would improve it, but nothing essential is missing for calling it correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions ('List of contact IDs to retrieve', 'Contact code to search for', 'Maximum number of results', 'Contact name to search for (partial match)', 'Detail level (summary, id, full, custom:field1,field2)'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Get contacts/companies (adresar) from AbraFlexi', clearly identifying a specific verb and resource. It adds valuable scope by explaining these are address-book entries (customers, suppliers, other contacts) and business partners, not the company itself. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling contact_get_* tools, so differentiation relies mostly on tool naming.

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 provides clear context about what the tool is for: retrieving address-book entries belonging to the bound AbraFlexi company, and it points to server_info for company binding context. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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