get_contact

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation (safe, non-destructive), but lacks details on error behavior (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, or specific return structure beyond 'full details'.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second provides prerequisite workflow. Front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized 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?

For a single-parameter retrieval tool with complete schema coverage, the description is functionally complete. It omits specific return value structure (no output schema exists), but 'full details' provides sufficient context for an agent to infer this returns a contact object.

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 has 100% description coverage with contactId defined as a UUID from sibling tools. Description reinforces this workflow ('by ID') but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or format constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 specific verb 'Get' with resource 'contact' and scope 'by ID'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 'list_contacts' and 'search_contacts' by implying this is for direct ID lookup versus browsing/searching.

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?

Explicitly states when to use alternatives: 'Use list_contacts or search_contacts to find a contactId.' This provides clear workflow guidance (find ID first, then get details) and explicitly names sibling alternatives.

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