get_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions return structure ('structured JSON with contact fields, phone numbers, and emails') but doesn't disclose read-only nature, permissions, or side effects. Adequate but could improve.

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 (two sentences plus docstring-style args/returns) with no wasted words. Front-loaded key information and efficiently structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description adequately covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return structure. No gaps remain.

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 0%, so description adds crucial meaning: 'identifier: Contact id or name text' clarifies the flexible input type. This compensates for the schema gap well.

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 'Get a unique Contacts record by id or name match,' which specifies the verb (get), resource (Contacts record), and method (by id or name). This distinguishes it from sibling 'search_contacts' for listing.

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?

It indicates usage via 'by id or name match,' implying use when you have a specific identifier. Although it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context with sibling tools makes it clear when to use this vs. 'search_contacts'.

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