Get contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral nuance that the response includes custom fields and tags, which is valuable beyond the schema (which only lists the input parameter). This provides additional context about the returned data without contradicting the annotations.

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, information-dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Fetch a single contact by id') and then includes the key return details ('including custom fields and tags'). Perfectly concise for the level of complexity.

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?

Given the tool simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, annotations cover safety), the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It communicates the essential return details (custom fields, tags). Minor omissions like authentication requirements or pagination are not necessary for a single-record fetch, so a 4 is appropriate.

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% (the only parameter contactId has a description). The description does not add deeper meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, required format, or source). It only says 'by id', which is implicit in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a single contact'), and the scope ('by id, including custom fields and tags'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ghl_search_contacts (search vs. retrieve by id) and ghl_get_business (different entity). An agent can immediately identify what this tool does and how it differs.

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 usage (when you need a single contact by ID, this is the tool) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention, for example, that ghl_search_contacts should be used when the ID is unknown. While the context is clear, explicit routing guidance is absent.

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