crm_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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the contact ID doesn't exist. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main action ('Get a single contact by ID'). While it could potentially be more structured with separate usage notes, it earns high marks for brevity and clarity within its compact form.

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 tool with 3 parameters (one required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or provide enough detail about the parameters to compensate for the missing structured documentation. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional 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 0%, meaning none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'by ID with specific properties and associations', which hints at the purpose of contactId, properties, and associations parameters. However, it doesn't explain what properties are available, how associations work, or provide examples. This adds some semantic value but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 resource 'a single contact by ID', making the purpose specific. It also mentions 'with specific properties and associations' which adds detail about what data is retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crm_get_object or crm_search_contacts, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like crm_get_object (generic retrieval), crm_search_contacts (filtered search), and crm_list_objects (bulk retrieval), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific contact retrieval tool. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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