Get Contact Person by ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one piece of non-annotation context – that the related contact is returned inline – but says nothing about null related-contacts, not-found behavior, or whether the expansion is optional.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and resource. The first sentence largely restates the title, making it slightly redundant, but nothing is wasted and the key detail (related contact inclusion) is easy to find.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations, the description covers purpose and the essence of the response. With no output schema, though, the return shape is only hinted at, and error/not-found behavior is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single UUID parameter is fully documented in the schema, including format and pattern. The description adds no meaning beyond that (no cross-references or ID sourcing hints), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get Contact Person by ID") and clarifies it retrieves a single contact person plus the related contact, which distinguishes it from list_contacts/search_contacts. It does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named get_contact sibling, so an agent must infer the contact-vs-contact-person distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by "by ID" – the agent understands this is the single-record lookup requiring an identifier. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus get_contact_by_email, search_contacts, or list_contacts, and no mention of behavior when the ID does not exist.

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