Get Contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read complete details', which conveys a read-only operation, but does not clarify error handling, permission requirements, or what 'complete details' entails. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. The added Chinese intent mapping is a minor extra but does not add fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description explains the core purpose. However, it does not describe return value structure or any edge cases (e.g., non-existent contact), leaving the agent without full context for what to expect.

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 coverage for contactId is 100% with a basic description ('Contact ID'). The tool description adds context that it's for a personal contact, which is marginal. Since the schema already documents the parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly defines the resource ('complete details for one personal contact'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like contacts_list and contacts_search, which are for listing and searching, not fetching a single contact's full details.

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 a single contact detail lookup, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as contacts_list or contacts_search, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites like having a valid contactId.

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