dealdesk.get_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not state permission requirements, behavior when the id is unknown, or what shape of record comes back. 'Get' implies a read, but that is inferred, not disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; nothing needs to be trimmed. Its brevity is not a structural flaw, though it leaves the definition sparse.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are mostly covered: the schema explains the projectId omission rule. However, with no annotations and a thin description, an agent gets no signal about auth scope, failure modes, or the returned record, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is only 50%: projectId is well documented in the schema, but contactId has no description anywhere. The description's 'by id' is the only hint that contactId is an identifier, and it adds nothing about the multi-project authorization rule that projectId encodes.

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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (contact), and scope (one, by id), which cleanly separates it from list_contacts and get_company. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named get_contact_commercial_summary, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_contacts (to find an id) or get_contact_commercial_summary (for enriched data). The phrase 'customer-directory contact' hints at scope but no alternative or condition is named.

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