Get Contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses an important behavioral nuance: the tool can return either a contact or a company, and it indicates that search_contacts returns 'the same full data', implying get_contact also returns full data. It does not cover error conditions or permissions, but for a simple read-by-ID, the key behavioral context is present.

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 three sentences long, with the purpose stated first, followed by usage guidance, and a concise note about when not to use it. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose and no words are wasted.

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 single-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and references the return nature ('full data'). It does not explicitly describe return structure or error handling, but the 'same full data' note and the existence of get_contact_schema mitigate the gap, making it mostly 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?

The schema describes contact_id as 'The ContactId of the record to retrieve' (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying that the ID can reference a company as well, and by mentioning external references as a source of the ID. This goes beyond the schema's narrow 'ContactId' label.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the exact resource ('a single contact or company by ID'), making the tool's function immediate. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'single' and by referencing search_contacts as an alternative.

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?

Provides explicit 'when to use' ('when you already have a ContactId and need the record') and 'when not to use' ('Only use get_contact when you have an ID but not the data'), with concrete examples like webhook or external reference. It also names the alternative search_contacts.

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