get_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the result includes full details and custom fields, which is useful, but it does not mention error behavior, auth requirements, or whether related entities are embedded by default. This is a moderate gap for a read tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Get a single contact by ID') and the additional detail about custom fields earns its place.

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 get-by-ID tool, the description covers the main use case and return content. It does not describe not-found behavior, but the input schema and simple design make that a minor omission. Given no output schema or annotations, the description is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds general context about returned details but does not add meaning to the 'with' parameter or its enum values. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single contact by ID'), and the scope ('full details including custom fields'). It distinguishes itself from list_contacts by emphasizing 'single' and from get_lead by naming contacts specifically.

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 makes it evident the tool is for retrieving one specific contact rather than listing contacts, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, such as when retrieving leads instead.

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