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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema: the $0.10 cost, the API key requirement, and the fact that extended kinds like visit/gift/stayed_over are encoded in summary rather than as separate rows.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, then usage guidance, then identity inputs, then cost/auth. Every sentence adds new information and none of it merely restates the tool name or title.

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 read-only lookup with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the returned content, names the identity inputs, gives a usage heuristic, and discloses cost/auth. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly calling out the optional filters or noting that person_id and name are alternative identifiers, but those are minor gaps.

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 67%, so the schema already documents to, from, kind, and limit. The description adds 'Pass person_id or name,' which helps for the two undocumented identity parameters, but it does not clarify that at least one seems effectively required or explain what happens if both are provided. The description only partially compensates for the uncovered parameters.

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 resource ('one CRM person') and a specific deliverable: a relationship timeline of interaction rows plus co-tagged calendar events. It also lists interaction kinds and explicitly frames itself as the preferred tool over dumping people.notes, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_people and get_events.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'when did I last see X?' and says to prefer this tool over dumping people.notes. This is useful context, though it does not clearly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative get_events for raw calendar-event access.

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