get_individuals_by_contact

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only,' which is beneficial for safety, but omits other behavioral traits such as whether it returns a list or single object, pagination, or response structure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 with two sentences and no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description fails to explain what the tool returns. An agent needs to know whether the response is a list, object, or other structure, especially without an output schema. This is a notable omission.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the single parameter (contact_id). It neither clarifies formatting, constraints, nor relationships, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('individuals that make up a contact'), which clearly indicates the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_contact_notes or get_gifts_by_contact by focusing on individuals. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, so a minor deduction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_contact or search_contacts. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any exclusions or prerequisites.

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