Get Contacts By IDs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results include 'all contact fields - same as search_contacts or get_contact' and states the 'Maximum 10,000 results per call.' This provides useful behavioral context beyond the tool name, though it does not detail pagination behavior or error handling for invalid IDs.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the third highlights key return behavior and limits. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is conceptually simple (bulk ID lookup), and the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, when to use it, and the result cap. Since there is no output schema, the reference to 'same as search_contacts or get_contact' helps set expectations, though a bit more detail on pagination or partial failures would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that the tool handles both contacts and companies via contact_ids, and by reiterating the result limit. It also contextualizes the contact_ids parameter as coming from webhooks or external references, which the schema does not imply.

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's function: 'Retrieve multiple contacts or companies by their IDs.' It specifies the resource (contacts/companies) and the scope (by IDs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_contacts (which searches by criteria) and get_contact (which retrieves a single contact).

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this when you have a list of ContactIds (e.g., from webhooks or external references).' It implies this is the right choice for ID-based lookups, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or scenarios where they would be preferable.

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