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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: notes are redacted unless include_notes=true, OAuth or scoped credential support is required, and the call costs $0.15 with an API key. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure that helps an agent call safely.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: the core definition is front-loaded, the alternative is named, and the important behavioral and access notes are compactly included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the output schema exists, the return shape does not need to be spelled out. The description covers the resource, parameter behavior, authentication, cost, and a relevant sibling alternative, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by framing person_id as 'user-owned' and explaining that notes are redacted unless include_notes=true, enriching the parameter semantics beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 operation and resource: it returns a subgraph around one user-owned person_id, including profile fields and declared connections. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_person_photos by noting that tool is for the full gallery.

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 routes callers to get_person_photos when they need the full gallery, providing an alternative and the condition for choosing it. It also clarifies when notes will be omitted and when include_notes changes behavior.

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