Informations générales d'un contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool returns both personal and professional data, which is some behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as error handling or access restrictions, which is acceptable for a simple read operation.

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, front-loaded, and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is no redundant fluff.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers the basic return contents (personal and professional data) with examples. However, it fails to clarify how this tool differs from the similarly named boond_contacts_get, and the return structure is left vague. Given the availability of rich annotations, the description is minimally acceptable but leaves room for improvement.

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?

The input schema provides a complete description of the only parameter (id) with a clear pattern and explanation. The description repeats 'ID du contact' without adding new meaning, so it does not enhance the schema's semantic coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 retrieves general contact information, listing example fields (coordonnées, société, fonction, tags). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose obvious. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool boond_contacts_get, which likely serves a similar or overlapping role.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context, exclusions, or mention of related tools like boond_contacts_get or boond_contacts_search, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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