Get Aircall contact

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

Annotations already provide a strong safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description need not repeat that. The word 'shared' adds a slight contextual nuance about the contact type, but the description does not clarify access requirements, error behavior, or return format. This is acceptable given the annotations, but the added value is minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence that states the core purpose without any filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and robust annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not clarify what 'shared' means or explicitly state that the full contact object is returned. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity, but the description could be slightly more complete.

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 100% coverage with a clear description for contact_id ('Unique Aircall contact ID'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema already carries the burden. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'shared Aircall contact', indicating a single-contact retrieval operation. It implies distinction from list/search siblings by focusing on 'one' contact, though it does not explicitly mention the contact_id parameter or specify how it differs from listing all contacts.

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?

Usage guidance is only implied through the singular 'one' – suggesting this tool is for retrieving a specific contact rather than listing or searching. No explicit alternatives are named, and there is no mention of when to choose this over aircall_list_contacts or aircall_search_contacts, leaving the context to be inferred.

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