Get a contact

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds value by specifying the exact data returned (name, email, job title, company, custom fields) and the relationship to tickets, which is useful beyond the structured annotations.

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, front-loaded with the outcome. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the simple nature of a get-by-ID operation, the description adequately covers the return fields and input provenance. It does not describe error cases, but the lack of an output schema makes the enumerated fields useful. It could mention 'not found' behavior, but this is a minor gap for a straightforward read tool.

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 schema only defines contact_id as an integer. The description explains that this corresponds to the requester_id from a ticket, adding meaningful semantic context that the schema lacks. With 0% schema description coverage, this hint is valuable.

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 gets a contact and enumerates the returned fields (name, email, job title, company, custom fields). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ticket and get_company by focusing on the person behind a ticket.

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 provides a concrete usage instruction: 'Use the requester_id from a ticket.' This indicates when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough for the agent.

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