get_contact_by_event_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description confirms 'Fetches data. Makes no changes'. However, it adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, rate limits, or response format) beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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 relatively concise, starting with key markers ('READ-ONLY', endpoint) and stating the purpose. However, it repeats 'Get Contact By Event ID' and includes line breaks that could be streamlined. Each sentence adds value, but slight redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core function but omits details about return structure or pagination behavior. The annotations cover safety, but the description does not fully inform an agent about expected results.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions only 'eventId' implicitly via the tool name, but does not elaborate on optional parameters (limit, offset, orders, filters) or their meaning 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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('contact by event ID'), specifying the input (event ID) and the output (contact involved in an event). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_contact' by focusing on event association.

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 implies usage when you have an event ID and need the associated contact, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'get_contact' or 'retrieve_contact_data'. No explicit usage boundaries are provided.

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