get_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the return content (all fields, tags, notes), but it does not mention error behavior (e.g., if contact not found) or explicitly state it is read-only. For a simple get operation this is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence stating the core purpose, followed by a useful example. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the purpose, usage context, and return scope (all fields, tags, notes), which is largely sufficient for an agent. It could mention error handling but this is a minor gap.

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% since contact_id is described as 'The contact ID (UUID)'. The description only reinforces this with 'specific contact' and an example, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the 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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'specific contact' and details the scope ('including all fields, tags, and notes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_contacts (which lists many contacts) and get_contact_activity (which focuses on activity).

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 phrase 'specific contact' and the example 'Show me details for contact <id>' make it clear this is for retrieving one contact's full details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is obvious given sibling names like list_contacts.

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