contact_get_notification_email

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 reveals an important selection behavior: preferring a primary/purpose-matching contact over the address's own email. This goes beyond the tool name and gives useful insight into how the result is chosen. It does not detail error behavior or missing-input handling, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action and then adds the key selection nuance. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

The tool has zero required parameters, and the description does not clarify that at least one of id or kod should be supplied, nor what happens if neither is provided. The output schema exists and parameter schema coverage is high, but the optional-identifier ambiguity leaves a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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%, so the parameters id, kod, and purpose are already adequately documented in the schema. The description adds a slight semantic link by mentioning 'purpose-matching,' which hints at how the purpose parameter is used, but it does not need to restate the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the email address to notify for a contact.' It also adds a distinguishing behavioral detail about preferring a primary/purpose-matching contact, which differentiates it from sibling tools like contact_get or contact_get_any_phone.

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 when to use the tool ('Get the email address to notify for a contact') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as when contact_get or contact_get_any_phone would be more appropriate. The usage context is clear but largely implicit.

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