get_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details what fields are returned and warns about errors for nonexistent IDs. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'Get' implies it. For a simple read tool, this is solid coverage.

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?

Three sentences with clear structure: purpose, usage context, and return content/error behavior. The field enumeration is a bit long but valuable given no output schema. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it returns, when to use it, and error behavior. It also references summary fields from sibling tools, providing complete context.

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 already explains the contact_id. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema's own explanation, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool gets full details of a single contact, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_contacts and search_contacts by explicitly positioning this as the follow-up for complete information.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this after list_contacts or search_contacts to see complete information.' This names the alternatives and clarifies when this tool is appropriate. Also notes an error condition for invalid IDs, reinforcing proper usage.

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