fiken_get_contact

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 and the description only needs to add context. It adds that the response contains organisation number, but says nothing about behavior when the contact ID is unknown or the slug is wrong. A 3 is appropriate with annotations doing most of the work.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the key resource front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

No output schema, no annotation gaps, but two undocumented required parameters and no statement of what fields come back beyond organisation number. For a lookup tool keyed on company slug plus contact ID, the definition should clarify scoping and failure behavior.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden — and it provides none for contact_id or company_slug. The parameter names are conventional enough that an agent can guess, but the definition adds no meaning about identifier scope or company scoping.

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 ('Les') and a specific resource (leverandør-/kundedetaljer plus organisasjonsnummer), which distinguishes it from write tools and from the bulk sibling fiken_list_contacts. It stops short of saying explicitly that it retrieves one contact by ID, leaving the singular-vs-list distinction to be inferred from the 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?

There is no when-to-use statement and no reference to alternatives such as fiken_list_contacts, even though that sibling is the obvious routing choice for the same resource. An agent must infer the distinction purely from the tool name.

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