Get Contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and the required OAuth scope contacts.readonly, which is useful authorization context beyond the annotations. It does not describe error behavior or return format, but for a simple read-only GET this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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 extremely short and front-loads the endpoint and scope, which are the most actionable details. The phrase 'Get Contact' redundantly repeats the title, but this is minor and does not meaningfully hurt the definition.

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-only GET with full schema coverage and strong safety annotations, the endpoint and scope are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain response contents, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple enough that this is an acceptable gap.

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 only parameter, contactId, is already 100% documented in the schema as 'Contact Id'. The description adds no additional semantics about path vs query usage, format expectations, or edge cases, so the schema carries the full burden and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a concrete resource ('contact by ID'), the HTTP verb GET, and the exact endpoint path, which is more specific than the title alone. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like contacts_get_duplicate_contact or contacts_get_contacts, leaving some ambiguity about the exact use case.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus searching for contacts or retrieving related contact data. It only notes the required scope, with no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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