get_contact_details

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

The description is consistent with the openWorldHint annotation (true), indicating the response may include additional fields. However, it adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the annotation already provides.

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, short sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise and to the point, though it lacks structure like a summary or usage example.

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 'get by ID' pattern with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the openWorldHint could be leveraged to hint at dynamic fields, which is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only says 'by id', which adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'contact_id'. The type and format remain unspecified.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all details for a contact by id'), making it easy to understand. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_account_users or get_design_templates by specifying the focus on contacts, but does not explicitly differentiate from search_contact_people.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_contact_people or other get_* tools. No mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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