get_contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a summary of the returned fields, but since an output schema exists this is largely redundant and it discloses nothing new about auth, scoping, or failure behavior.

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 terse sentence fragment with zero filler, front-loaded on the resource. It is efficient, though it spends its one clause on return values rather than on disambiguation or usage.

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 an output schema present the return fields need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only nature, so the description is not badly incomplete. Its real shortfall is the absence of any guidance on how this fetch differs from the many other lookup siblings.

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 50%: the required 'contact' parameter is documented with accepted formats (JID, international number, name), but 'account' has no description in either the schema or the description. The description does not compensate for that gap, giving a baseline minimum-viable score.

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 resource (a contact's card) and enumerates what it returns: names, number, last discussion, and shared groups. The read verb is implied by the name. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like search_contacts or get_profile, so an agent must infer which to pick.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as search_contacts for discovery or get_profile for profile data. The agent is left to guess the selection criteria on its own.

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