get_contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that the identifier accepts a fuzzy name/substring resolution ("koll") rather than only an exact id, but it omits the ambiguity/failure behavior that this fuzzy matching implies.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block; no wasted sentences. The Python docstring "Args:" formatting is slightly heavier than necessary for one parameter but costs little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the lone parameter is fully documented with examples. The remaining gap is behavior on ambiguous or unmatched lookups, which matters for a substring-capable identifier but is not addressed.

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% and the single required parameter is opaque ("Contact"), so the description must carry the load. It does so well, giving both the canonical id form ("contact-adriana-koll") and accepted name/substring forms with concrete examples.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Get full details for a single contact"), which inherently separates it from list_contacts_for_account and search_contacts siblings. It stops short of naming the sibling it displaces, so an agent must infer that bulk/partial matching belongs elsewhere.

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?

Usage is implied by "single contact" versus the plural/multi-contact siblings, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_contacts or get_account, and no guidance on what to do if the name/substring matches multiple contacts.

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