Get contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds a disclosure the annotations cannot: login details, wages and personal ids of employees are deliberately omitted, which tells the agent not to expect those fields. It says nothing about permissions or pagination, so a 3 is fair.

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 tight sentences with the resource and full field set front-loaded, followed by the exclusions. The opening fragment 'One Directory record in full' is slightly clipped as a sentence but functions well as a headline; nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating the fields returned and explicitly naming what is omitted. For a one-parameter read tool with strong annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 100% and the single parameter's description already names its source. The description's mention of list_contacts only restates that origin and adds no format or edge-case detail (e.g. what happens with an id from list_leads), so 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?

States a specific verb ('Reads one ... Directory record by contact_id') and a concrete resource, and the field inventory ('second phone, fax, website, status, services, tags, default payment terms...') makes it unmistakably the single-record counterpart to list_contacts. An agent can distinguish it from sibling get_* tools purely by resource name.

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 phrase 'everything list_contacts gives plus...' implicitly routes listing to list_contacts and detail to this tool, and the schema note points at list_leads as another id source. There is no explicit 'do not use when' statement or guidance on lead vs contact selection, keeping it below a 5.

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