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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the operation itself. It is silent on error behavior for unknown IDs, authentication needs, and what a returned contact includes; the only added context is an API version tag.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the operation and its selector appear immediately. The parenthetical API version is a minor extra but costs nothing.

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 one-parameter getter with full schema coverage this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description could have indicated what a contact record contains or what happens on a bad ID. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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% for the single contactId parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's "by ID" merely restates the schema and adds no format or sourcing detail (e.g., where to obtain a contactId).

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 specific contact") and adds the selector ("by ID"), which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_contacts. It does not explicitly name its siblings, but the single-record-by-ID scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this tool is for when a contactId is known and that list_contacts is the alternative for discovery. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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