contact_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small operational hint about re-checking notes when a prior result was uncertain, but says nothing about error handling or what an uncertain result actually looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first and the optional-parameter tip second; nothing is wasted. The brevity borders on under-specification rather than verbosity, which is the lesser flaw here.

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 simple read-only getter with a fully described schema and rich annotations, the essentials are present. Gaps remain around the paginated notes behavior (page/limit interaction with include_notes) and the failure modes behind "resultado incerto", which an agent would want when deciding to retry.

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 100%, with page, limit, contact_id and include_notes all documented in the schema itself. The description only touches include_notes and largely restates the schema's "para conferência" wording, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond it.

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?

"Consulta um contato" states a specific verb (fetch) and resource (contact), clearly a single-record retrieval as opposed to contacts_list or contacts_search. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the plural names.

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 second sentence gives one concrete usage rule: set include_notes=true to verify notes after an uncertain result. There is no guidance on when to pick contact_get over contacts_search or contacts_list, so routing between siblings is only implied by the singular resource.

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