Get contact with history

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does add real value by disclosing the response composition and an explicit truncation limit of 20 activities, which the annotations cannot convey; it stops short of saying whether that cap is silent or how a missing contact behaves.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope and the activity cap are stated up front, and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it reasonably does by naming the included collections and the activity cap. It is slightly incomplete on edge cases such as nonexistent contacts and whether the deals or follow-up lists are themselves bounded.

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%, so the description is expected to compensate for the undocumented parameter, and it does not: contact_id is never mentioned, nor is its c_<hex> format or that it is required. The schema's pattern constraint is the only signal about the parameter's shape.

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 names the specific resource (a full contact record) and enumerates the associated payload: deals, open follow-ups, and the 20 most recent activities. It implicitly separates itself from list_contacts by being a single, full-detail fetch, but it never names that sibling or any alternative explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the detailed single-contact lookup to use when it already has an ID and needs the full picture, versus list_contacts for browsing. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the routing burden falls on inference.

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