describe_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not mention permissions, response shape, or potential errors. The phrase 'Get details' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no extra behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. There is no redundant fluff, though the brevity sacrifices substance. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but lacks depth.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify what details are returned, any filtering semantics, or edge cases. Although an output schema exists, the description still needs to orient the agent about the tool's role and constraints, which it does not.

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 does not explain the purpose or format of the two parameters (contact_id, instance_id). 'Specific contact' weakly hints at contact_id but provides no meaning for instance_id, which is required but unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific contact'), clearly indicating a single-object read operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_contacts' by implying retrieval of full details rather than a search result, though it doesn't explicitly state what 'details' includes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_contacts' or 'cases_list_cases_for_contact'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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