Get Contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: caching details (30 min fresh, 4 hours stale, use_cache, force_refresh) and output fields _cache_status and _cached_at. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not mention error handling or rate limits.

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 well-structured with a header, caching paragraph, parameter list, and return format. It uses emojis for visual cues and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (context signal) and rich annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, caching behavior, parameter semantics, and return fields. It is complete for a read-only get tool.

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 0% (no descriptions in JSON schema). The description explains all four parameters with meaningful labels: contact_id, account_id, use_cache, force_refresh, including defaults and behaviors like 'bypass cache'. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions, though format details (e.g., contact_id format) are absent.

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 'Get contact details (read-only, safe for unsupervised use)' and 'Returns complete contact information including all fields.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like contact_list, contact_create, etc.

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 a single contact's details, with caching options. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like contact_list or search_contacts, nor does it provide when-not or exclusion criteria.

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