Get IT Glue Contact

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

Annotations provide comprehensive hints (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to repeat safety aspects. It adds value by specifying the return content ('Contact details including emails, phones, and notes') and output format options, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors beyond what annotations cover.

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 well-structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the return details into the main statement, but overall it's efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), annotations cover safety, and schema covers parameters fully, the description provides adequate context. It specifies the return content and format options, which compensates for the lack of output schema. For a read-only get operation, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention error handling or authentication.

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%, with clear parameter documentation in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'Contact ID' for 'id' and format options for 'response_format', but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (e.g., ID format specifics).

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: 'Get a single contact by ID' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('contact'), distinguishing it from list operations like 'itglue_list_contacts'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get operations (e.g., 'itglue_get_organization'), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 implies usage by specifying 'by ID', suggesting it's for retrieving a specific contact rather than listing all contacts. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'itglue_list_contacts' or other get tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites or error cases.

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