get_contact

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the read-only nature, and the description merely restates that without adding new behavioral details. There is no mention of what happens for missing contacts, response shape, or any side effects, but it does not contradict the annotation.

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-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It avoids fluff, yet it omits essential usage and parameter context.

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 tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, this description is incomplete. It gives the agent only the bare action, not enough to confidently invoke the tool in varied scenarios.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the purpose or format of workspaceId or contactId. An agent is left to infer that these are identifiers, with no guidance on their relationship or expected values.

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 the action (read) and the resource (contact), and the required contactId and workspaceId parameters make it evident this is a single-record fetch rather than a list operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_contacts, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as list_contacts, search_global, or contacts_timeline. It provides no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or sibling tool routing.

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