Contacts: Show Contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the required auth scheme (User API key in the api-access-token header) and the unusual note that text may arrive in Persian and IDs/numbers may use Persian or Arabic-Indic digits, which materially affects how an agent should pass and interpret values.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then the HTTP route, auth, and the locale caveat. Every element is relevant and there is no padding, though the endpoint/auth lines partly duplicate metadata an agent may already have.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally say something about the returned contact shape or behavior when the ID is not found, and it does not. Annotations and the schema cover safety and inputs, so it is adequate but leaves a noticeable gap around return semantics.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents both account_id and id. The digit-encoding note adds genuine meaning for the id/account_id parameters that the schema does not convey, so a small bump above baseline is warranted.

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 and resource ('Get a contact by ID'), which cleanly separates it from list_contacts, search_contacts, and filter_contacts. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling gapify_client_get_contact, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'by ID' phrasing implies the use case (single-record retrieval when the identifier is known), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as search_contacts when the ID is unknown. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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