Get contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden yet only discloses the returned related entities. It says nothing about required permissions, error behavior for a missing contact, or side effects, leaving key traits undocumented.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the payload preview is placed immediately after the core verb. It is efficient, though extremely short relative to what it omits.

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-param read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back, but the absence of annotations and any input/error context leaves real gaps for an agent to call it correctly. The return-value hint partially compensates.

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 never mentions contactId, so neither source explains what the identifier is (CRM internal ID vs external key) or its expected form. A single-parameter tool should at least name and qualify its input.

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+resource ('Get a contact's details') and adds the useful scope of what is returned (company, deals, activity history). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_contacts or search_crm beyond the obvious singular-resource reading.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_contacts (for enumeration) or search_crm (for lookup by other fields). The agent must infer that this is the single-record-by-id fetch.

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