get-contact

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds the HTTP method and required OAuth scope (customers:read), enriching the behavioral context. For a simple fetch operation this is sufficient transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the operation, endpoint, and permission scope. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes.

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 with one fully documented parameter, a readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description provides all essential context: what it fetches, how (GET), and what scope is required. Nothing critical is missing.

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 id parameter is already fully documented. The description only repeats the {id} placeholder from the endpoint without adding new semantic detail, matching the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('a customer contact'), and the endpoint path clarifies exactly which object is retrieved. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list-customer-contacts (plural/list) and get-customer (different resource) without ambiguity.

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 clearly conveys this is for fetching a single customer contact by ID, with the HTTP method and scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough to route an agent correctly for a simple get-by-id operation.

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