get_contact

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

The description clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') and states the return type as a string, which gives basic transparency. However, annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden; it does not mention required authorization via user_google_email, error behavior, or what 'detailed information' includes.

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 compact, structured with Args and Returns, and front-loads the core purpose. The parameter examples add value without excessive verbosity, though 'Required.' in Args duplicates information already present in the schema.

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 both inputs and the return type, and an output schema exists. Still, it lacks broader context such as when to use it versus related contact tools, potential errors, or whether the contact must belong to the specified Google user.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: user_google_email is required and identifies the user's account, and contact_id includes format examples such as 'c1234567890' or 'people/c1234567890'. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific contact.' This clearly distinguishes it from list/search operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools. The resource and intent are 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?

The description implies use when you already have a contact_id and need details, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_contacts, search_contacts, or manage_contact. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names mentioned.

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