get_contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful detail that a vCard link is included, but says nothing about authentication, whether the contact data can be absent, or pagination/link expiry, and output schema exists to cover return shape.

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 short fragment with zero padding, and the enumerated profile types are front-loaded. It is telegraphic rather than a full sentence, but every element 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations and a full output schema, most of the burden is lifted, so the missing verb and missing sibling routing are the only real gaps. Still, without any statement of when to call this versus get_profile, the definition is only minimally sufficient.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description cannot add parameter meaning that does not exist.

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 is a noun phrase that lists the returned content (contact details, LinkedIn, GitHub, Keyoxide profiles, vCard link) but never states a verb or explicitly says it retrieves the owner's contact information. It hints at a distinction from siblings like get_profile, but with a dozen sibling 'get_*' tools, the agent must infer that this is the contact-info endpoint rather than a general profile endpoint.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. The closest sibling, get_profile, is never contrasted, so the agent has no rule for choosing between them.

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