Get RD Station CRM Contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation with potential for new info. The description adds value by enumerating exactly what fields/data the response contains (emails, phones, title, notes, linked deals with status), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose response format, pagination/limits for the deals list, or behavior when the contact doesn't 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and enumerates return data efficiently; the second provides a crucial prerequisite. Perfectly proportioned for a focused single-ID retrieval tool.

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 one-parameter read tool with strong annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the purpose, return contents, and prerequisite. The only minor gap is not describing error behavior (e.g., non-existent contact) and not specifying the format of the returned deals. But given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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% and the single parameter contact_id already has a description noting its origin ('from rdcrm_search_contacts'). The description reinforces this cross-reference by stating 'Get the contact ID from rdcrm_search_contacts first.' While it doesn't add much beyond the schema, the parameter is simple (a plain ID string) and adequately documented. The description adds modest value on top of full schema coverage.

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 specifies the exact purpose: 'Get full details of one contact by ID' and enumerates the specific fields returned (emails, phones, title, notes, linked deals with status). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like rdcrm_get_deal (which fetches deals, not contacts) and rdcrm_search_contacts (which searches/list, not retrieves a full single record).

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Get the contact ID from rdcrm_search_contacts first.' This clearly instructs when/how to use this tool versus alternatives — you must first search to obtain the ID, implying this is a follow-up retrieval after discovery. This is excellent usage guidance.

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