get_contact

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

readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already declare the safe-read profile, so the description could have added value elsewhere but adds nothing. It doesn't say whether a missing ID errors or returns null, nor anything about the response 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 sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded. Efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than maximally concise.

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 one-parameter read tool with safety annotations, this is minimally adequate. However there is no output schema, so the description provides no notion of what a contact record contains or what happens on failure.

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 carries the burden, yet 'by ID' only restates the obvious id parameter and adds no format (UUID), validation, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema's format field already implies.

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 clear verb (Get) and resource (contact) with scope qualifier (single, by ID). Among siblings like list_contacts and update_contact, it implicitly differentiates by retrieval of one record, though it never names an 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?

No guidance on when to use this vs list_contacts or get_conversation, and no prerequisites or error conditions mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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