get_contact_preferences

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the return values are global configuration merged with contact overrides, and they are configuration values rather than instructions. It does not cover auth/rate-limit details, but that is a minor gap given the annotations and output schema.

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 two short sentences with no wasted text, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the important return-value clarification.

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 and annotations carry much of the burden, and the description usefully explains merge behavior and return type. However, with 0% schema description coverage on three parameters, the description should do more to explain how `data_type` and `expected_peer_userids` affect the result.

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% for three parameters. The description vaguely implies `peer_userid` by referring to a connection/peer, but it does not explain `data_type` or `expected_peer_userids`, leaving most parameter meaning undocumented.

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 specific read operation on a specific resource: effective preferences for a contact/peer. It is distinguishable from the write-oriented sibling `set_contact_preferences`, though it does not explicitly name that sibling as an alternative.

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 saying this reads effective preferences for one of your own connections. It does not explicitly state when to use this instead of `set_contact_preferences` or other settings-related siblings, so the guidance remains implicit.

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