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 adds 'with all fields and tags,' which clarifies the return content. However, it does not discuss error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich, scoring a 3.

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 only two concise sentences: the core purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter documentation is compact and directly under 'Args.' Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the essential input semantics and operation scope. It misses explicit usage guidance, but for a single-ID get with no nested objects, the combination of name, description, schema, and output schema suffices.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter, but the description explicitly documents 'contact_id: The Nimble contact ID,' providing the missing semantics. This fully compensates for the schema gap, giving the agent the necessary meaning for the parameter.

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 'Get a single contact by ID with all fields and tags,' specifying the action (get), resource (contact), and scope (single by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_contacts and get_contacts_by_ids, which retrieve multiple contacts or search.

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 retrieving one contact by ID, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Siblings such as get_contacts_by_ids, list_contacts, and search_contacts exist, yet no guidance is provided on choosing among them. Usage is implied by the wording rather than explicitly stated.

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