Get a single contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds only the endpoint and confirms a read operation, consistent with annotations. It does not add context about not-found behavior, authentication, or response shape, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 short, but 'Get a single contact.' and 'Get a single contact person by ID.' are redundant restatements of the same purpose. The endpoint line is useful, but the repetition wastes the front-loaded position and could have been merged into one sentence.

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 read tool with two params, no output schema, and strong annotation coverage, the package is mostly adequate. The main gap is the missing differentiation from get_relation and lack of guidance on when to use this tool over list/other get operations. Minor missing details like not-found behavior are tolerable at this complexity level.

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%, with both id and administration already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond restating 'by ID.' With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single contact person by ID.' The endpoint '[Contacts] GET /contact/{id}' reinforces the exact operation. It doesn't explicitly distinguish contact from the sibling get_relation, which could be confused, but the 'contact person' phrasing provides partial differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of alternatives such as list_relations or get_relation, nor any condition that selects this tool over them. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name and generic 'by ID' phrasing.

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