fcrm get contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the required capability (`fcrm_read_contacts` or `fcrm_manage_contacts`) and the enforcing policy, which the agent needs before attempting the call.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient. The capability block is somewhat heavy with bold markdown and internal policy naming, but it does carry actionable information rather than padding.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the lookup key, the eager-loading option and the authorization requirement. It stops short of describing the returned contact shape or the not-found behavior, a minor gap given the rich annotations and complete input schema.

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 schema already documents `id`, `with`, `account` and `get_by_email`, including the enum of relationship values. The description restates what `with[]` does (eager-load related data) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a single contact') and pins the lookup key ('by ID or email'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list/search tools. It also names the eager-loading extension point, so an agent understands the full scope of the operation.

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 guidance on when to pick this over fcrm_list_contacts or fcrm_search_contacts, nor any stated preconditions for the lookup (e.g. behavior when the ID is unknown). The capability note describes authorization, not tool selection.

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