teamleader_contact_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns contact details and linked companies, which adds context beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or return structure, leaving some uncertainty.

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 that conveys the core purpose and a key output detail with zero unnecessary words.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it states what is returned (details and linked companies). It could be more complete by noting not-found behavior, but overall it gives enough context for a straightforward get-by-ID operation.

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 schema already describes the only parameter 'id' as 'Contact UUID' (100% coverage). The description's 'by ID' adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get details') and resource ('a specific contact by ID'), and adds the useful qualifier 'including linked companies.' It unambiguously distinguishes this from list-style siblings like teamleader_contacts_list by emphasizing a single contact and by ID.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as teamleader_contacts_list or teamleader_company_info. The context implies use when you have a contact ID, but there is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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