get_csm_contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (name, account, phone, email), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it does not disclose behaviors such as match semantics or not-found handling.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and return scope without redundancy.

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, single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequately complete. It covers the purpose, resource, and expected output fields, though it could optionally mention the sibling list tool or failure behavior.

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 parameter `name_or_sysid` is already documented as accepting contact name, email, or sys_id. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for parameter meaning, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clearly defined resource ('customer contact') and enumerates the returned details (name, account, phone, email). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_csm_contacts (list vs. single record) and get_csm_account (different entity).

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?

Usage context is implied by the 'get' pattern and the existence of sibling tools like list_csm_contacts, suggesting this is for fetching a single contact's details by identifier. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites exist.

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