communications_get_preferences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality.

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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'communication preferences' include, how results are structured, or provide enough context for the agent to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'contact' which maps to 'contactId', but doesn't explain what 'subscriptionId' is or when it's required. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, this creates ambiguity about parameter usage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('communication preferences for a contact'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'communications_get_subscription_status' or 'communications_get_subscription_definitions', which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'communications_get_subscription_status' or 'communications_update_preferences'. It mentions neither prerequisites nor exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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