Get Contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the contacts are for an authenticated account and lists the returned field values, but it repeats 'Read-only' from the annotations and does not disclose error behavior or handling for domains not in the account.

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 front-loaded and compact, using one main sentence plus a short 'Read-only' note. The final note is somewhat redundant with the annotations, slightly reducing the score from a perfect 5.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich safety annotations, the description provides enough context about what is retrieved and what fields are returned. It could mention not-found or permission behavior, but no output schema exists and the essential retrieval semantics are covered.

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 domain parameter, which already documents the expected fully qualified domain name format. The description adds the context that the domain belongs to the authenticated account, but it does not provide additional syntax or parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the four contacts ... for a domain in the authenticated account.' It further enumerates the exact contact types and field values returned, making the tool clearly distinguishable from siblings such as update_contacts or get_domain.

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?

It clearly implies a read-only lookup for an authenticated domain, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_contacts, get_domain, or list_domains. The usage context is adequate but not directive.

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