get_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only provides the output type ('JSON string with contact details') and the verb 'Get' implies read-only, but it does not explicitly state no side effects, error behavior for missing IDs, or authentication requirements.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by well-labelled Args and Returns sections. No filler or redundant information.

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 one-parameter getter, the description covers purpose, parameter, and return type. However, with no annotations, it lacks explicit handling of not-found cases, read-only confirmation, and guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_contacts or search_contacts.

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%, and the description adds 'The IT Glue contact ID' to explain contact_id. This provides minimal semantic context beyond the schema's title and type, but it does not elaborate on how to obtain the ID or any constraints beyond being an integer.

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 and resource: 'Get a specific contact by ID.' It differentiates from sibling tools like list_contacts and search_contacts by specifying retrieval by a single ID, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 is implied: 'Get a specific contact by ID' suggests this tool is for when you already have the contact_id. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_contacts or search_contacts, nor does it state when not to use it.

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