get_contact_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the operation is read-only, with nothing about what 'local relationship context' contains, what happens when the email matches no contact, or any auth/data-source (local vs server) implications.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Nothing superfluous; ideal size for a simple single-parameter lookup.

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 low-complexity read with one param and no output schema, the description is minimally viable, but it never says what the returned relationship context actually is, which leaves the agent guessing about the tool's value relative to get_contact_brief.

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 a single required 'email' parameter. The description indicates the key is one email address identifying the contact, which adds a little meaning, but it gives no format or matching semantics beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the local relationship context') scoped to 'one email address', so the operation is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_contact_brief, nor from save_contact_context, which is the natural write counterpart.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_contact_brief or the other contact-related siblings; no prerequisites or context for invoking it. 'Read-only' describes a trait, not a use condition, so the agent gets no routing help.

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