Get GHL Contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and mutation. The description adds value by listing what details are returned (custom fields, tags, activity), which goes beyond annotations but still doesn't address error behavior or response format. With the annotation bar lowered, this is a strong score.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the verb and resource, then lists key detail categories. 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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description adequately conveys purpose and return scope. No output schema exists, but 'all details including custom fields, tags, and activity' gives a reasonable sense of the response. It doesn't cover edge cases like not found, but that's not critical for context completeness here.

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%, with contactId described as 'The contact ID to retrieve.' The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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' with a clear resource 'single contact by ID' and enumerates included details: 'custom fields, tags, and activity.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_search_contacts (which searches) and ghl_get_contact_notes or ghl_get_contact_tasks (which retrieve sub-resources).

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 clearly implies usage when you need a single contact by ID, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that ghl_search_contacts should be used when the ID is unknown. This is clear context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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