surveymonkey_get_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Returns' makes clear this is a read-only fetch and does not suggest side effects, but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or what happens when the contact_id does not exist.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall size is appropriate and easy to scan.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are already covered. Still, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral detail about not-found cases, making it minimally complete for a one-parameter getter but not richly contextual.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, 'contact_id: Contact ID' merely restates the parameter name and title from the schema, adding no new meaning such as where the ID comes from or its expected format.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Returns the details of a specific contact.' This distinguishes it from list-style tools like surveymonkey_list_contacts and from get_contact_list, though it does not explicitly name any sibling or scope limitation.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'specific contact' weakly implies a single-contact lookup by ID, but there are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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