Get contact details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds actionable behavioral context by specifying the return contents (tags and custom field values), which is not available from the annotations. It doesn't contradict anything and provides useful detail about what the tool returns, so it goes beyond the baseline.

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 sentences: the first states the primary action, the second elaborates what is returned. Every word earns its place, there is no fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 read-only operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent can expect: full contact attributes, tags, and custom field values. There is no missing information about side effects (annotations cover safety), errors, or pagination (not applicable for a single contact fetch). The description is comprehensive for this tool's complexity.

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 both parameters have descriptions, but those descriptions are minimal ('Contact uuid parameter', 'Profile uuid parameter'), essentially restating the parameter names. The tool description adds no further semantic detail about the parameters beyond the context that this is for a single contact in a profile. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema nominally covers parameters, but neither schema nor description adds meaningful semantics beyond naming.

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 'Get the full details of a single contact' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly lists what is returned (contact attributes, tags, and custom field values), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reach_listContactsV1, reach_createANewContactV1, or reach_updateAContactV1. The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 for retrieving a single contact's details, and the sibling namespace makes the alternative (list for multiple contacts) obvious. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest an alternative, so it's clear context without explicit exclusions. A score of 4 fits: clear context, no exclusions.

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