get_contact

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

The description explicitly states 'READ-ONLY' and 'Makes no changes to your ActiveCampaign account', which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). The disclosure of the HTTP method (GET) provides additional context. However, it does not reveal any traits beyond what annotations already convey, so the description adds limited value.

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 short but contains redundancy: 'Retrieve a contact' and 'Retrieve an existing contact' say the same thing. The emoji and HTTP path are useful but add minimal value. It could be more concise by removing repetition. Overall, it's adequate but not polished.

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 no output schema, the description explains the basic action and safety. However, it does not mention what the response contains (e.g., full contact object) or how it differs from sibling tools. Given the context of many similar tools, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks contextual completeness.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter 'id' with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra context about the parameter beyond the schema's 'ID of the contact'. No examples, formats, or constraints are given, so no meaningful addition 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a contact, using verbs like 'Retrieve' and 'Fetches data'. It identifies the resource (contact) and the HTTP method (GET). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling retrieval tools like 'retrieve_contact_data' or 'retrieve_contact_field_values', all of which also retrieve contact information, reducing purpose differentiation.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use. Given the large number of sibling tools for retrieving various contact details, the lack of usage guidance is a significant gap.

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