Get Contact details

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the input (contact_id UUID) and output (dict), but does not mention error handling, authentication, or confirm that the operation is read-only. The simple 'get' name suggests safety, but the description itself adds limited behavioral context beyond input/output.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args/Returns structure is clean and free of redundant information, though it could be slightly tighter by removing the placeholder 'Dict:' label.

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 one-parameter get operation, this description adequately covers purpose, parameter, and return type. However, without an output schema, the return type 'A dictionary containing the contact details' is vague and could benefit from listing expected fields or mentioning potential error conditions. Still, the tool's simplicity makes the description sufficient.

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 only lists contact_id with type string, while the description adds that it must be a UUID, which is essential semantic meaning. This goes beyond the schema and clarifies the expected value format, justifying a strong score for a single parameter.

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 tool retrieves details for a single contact using a UUID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contacts (list), create_contact, update_contact, and delete_contact. The verb 'Get details' and the specific resource ('specific contact') make the purpose unambiguous.

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 use for retrieving a specific contact's details, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., get_contacts for listing) or when-not-to-use situations. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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