nworks_contact_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, confirming safe read-only behavior. The description adds the requirement for User OAuth authentication and contact.read scope, which is useful behavioral context not present in the annotations. No contradictions.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the ID source and authentication requirement. No redundancy or filler; every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 single-parameter get operation with annotations covering safety traits and no output schema, the description provides enough contextual information: purpose, ID retrieval, and auth requirement. It lacks explicit return value description, but the get semantics imply returning contact details.

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?

The schema description for contactId already covers the parameter entirely (100% coverage), stating it's the contact ID obtainable from nworks_contact_list. The description repeats this exact information without adding new format, constraints, or examples, so it adds no value 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 clearly states the action (조회/query) and resource (특정 연락처/specific contact), and explicitly ties the contactId to the nworks_contact_list lookup, distinguishing it from list or create/update/delete siblings. The verb and object are specific and 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 provides the source of the contactId (nworks_contact_list) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nworks_contact_list for bulk retrieval. Guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving some inference to the agent.

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