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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Get one person' implying a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. The description lacks sufficient transparency for an unannotated tool.

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 concise, only two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence is necessary and there is no 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does not hint at the return value shape. The tool has 5 parameters, and while the schema covers most, the description is minimal. For a simple get tool, it is barely adequate but could be more complete.

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 input schema has 80% coverage, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, baseline is 3, but there is no added value from the description.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'one person' from Personio, and provides context about resolving hiring-team person IDs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_candidate or list_persons, though the mention of 'recruiting applications' provides some distinction.

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 use when needing a single person by ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_candidate or list_persons. There is no mention of when not to use or prerequisites.

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