get_contact

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds some behavioral context by specifying what types of information will be returned (tier, message stats, yearly breakdown, recent messages), which helps the agent understand the scope of data returned. However, it doesn't mention any limitations, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Deep info on a specific contact') followed by specific data elements. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

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 read-only tool with good annotations and a fully documented single parameter, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It specifies what information will be returned, which is helpful since there's no output schema. However, it doesn't address potential limitations, error cases, or how it differs from similar sibling tools, leaving some gaps in contextual understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'contact' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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: retrieving 'deep info on a specific contact' with specific data elements listed (tier, message stats, yearly breakdown, recent messages). It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('contact'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'contact_stats' or 'resolve_contact' that might provide overlapping functionality.

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. With multiple sibling tools related to contacts (contact_stats, resolve_contact, list_contacts) and conversations (get_conversation, get_thread), there's no indication of when this specific 'deep info' retrieval is appropriate versus other contact-related tools.

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