Get a contact

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by stating the return includes linked appointments and form answers, and by explaining that attendeeId links booking identity to the stored contact. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentences deliver the tool's purpose, scope, return contents, and input alternatives with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds only essential identifier semantics.

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?

An output schema is present, so return-value details do not need to be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers purpose, output contents, and accepted identifiers. The only notable gap is not explicitly stating that one of contactId or attendeeId must be supplied, especially since the schema marks both as optional.

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?

The schema only documents attendeeId; contactId has no description and schema coverage is 50%. The description compensates by clarifying that either identifier can be used and that attendeeId comes from an appointment context. It does not explicitly state that exactly one ID is required, but it adds meaningful meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return a full contact record including linked appointments and form answers.' This clearly distinguishes get_contact from sibling tools like search_contacts or get_me, and the mention of accepting contactId or attendeeId further narrows its scope.

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 gives clear context on when to invoke the tool: when you already have a contactId or an attendeeId from an appointment. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative such as search_contacts, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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