Get contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's mention of 'Returns full detail' aligns but adds no new behavioral context beyond confirming the return type. No mention of performance, rate limits, or other constraints.

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 sentence of 15 words, front-loading the key purpose and included data. No redundant phrases.

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 retrieve tool with no output schema, the description provides core information about what is returned. However, it could mention additional details like the full response structure (e.g., custom fields) or error conditions. Still, it is fairly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, meaning the parameters have no descriptions. The tool description does not explain the contact_id (implied but not explicit) or the fields parameter (its purpose or valid values). The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 that the tool returns full detail for a contact, specifying included data (emails, phone numbers, addresses). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search (returns list) and update (modifies). The verb 'Returns' and resource 'full detail for a contact' are specific.

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 for retrieving full details of a single contact, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as clio_search_contacts for searches or clio_get_matter for matter-specific contacts. No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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