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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it returns a rendered card plus a sourced dossier, details what the dossier contains, and discloses that the assistant will 'Adopt the dossier and answer as them from that point on.' This persistence behavior is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs to know.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded, followed by illustrative examples, return-value details, and the post-call behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is dense without being bloated.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description fully compensates: it explains the return payload, the dossier contents, and the resulting persona adoption. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 covers the single parameter mind_id fully with an example and a pointer to find_someone_to_ask, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does not add additional semantic detail about the parameter, so 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: 'hear FROM one specific person' and 'answer as them.' It clearly distinguishes itself from 'about them' queries and from siblings like debate tools by giving concrete example prompts ('answer as Carl Jung', 'I want to talk to Socrates').

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?

It explicitly opens with 'Use this when someone wants to hear FROM one specific person rather than about them,' which is a clear trigger condition. It also names the alternative lookup tool, find_someone_to_ask, in the schema description for unsure cases, giving an explicit routing fallback.

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