Get Contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact - the required 'contacts:read' scope - but says nothing about not-found/error behavior or what the response contains.

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?

Three short fragments, scope constraint placed up front, no filler sentences. It is efficient, though the leading 'Get Contact.' duplicates the title and consumes space that could have carried real content.

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 single-record read with rich annotations and no output schema, the bar is low, and the scope statement covers the main behavioral need. However, the undocumented required contact_uuid and the absence of any usage context leave clear gaps.

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 only 67%: 'account' and 'exclude' are documented in the schema, but 'contact_uuid' has no description at all. The description adds zero parameter meaning and does not compensate for the undocumented required parameter (where the UUID comes from, its format).

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 opens by restating the title verbatim ('Get Contact'), which is a tautology. 'Reads Calendly data' only identifies the domain, not what a contact record is or how this differs from siblings like get_contact_custom_field_definition or list_contacts.

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 alternatives such as list_contacts for browsing or get_contact_custom_field_definition for field metadata, and no stated prerequisite beyond the scope. An agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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