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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the two-tier depth behavior, that output must be presented verbatim with headings preserved, that the person should not be saved unless asked, and the first-name/they pronoun rule for added notes. It does not state whether the call itself persists a record or has rate/latency characteristics, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and default depth before the escalation rule and formatting constraints. Dense but nearly every sentence is an operative instruction; the verbatim-presentation warning is repeated in several forms, which costs a little trimming.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the sections each depth returns (KNOW/AVOID/INSTEAD for the card; decision style, trust, warning signs, communication for full). For a five-parameter generative read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and handle the result.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains the card→full progression for depth and that context should capture the user's described moment so the card fits, and it shows that name/dob/vertical/context must be repeated on the second call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — get a person 'read' from the numbrU engine — and names the exact artifact returned (a card with KNOW, AVOID, INSTEAD). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_person, create_person, and list_people, so an agent can route correctly without opening another schema.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule: call with depth "card" first, escalate to "full" only when the user asks to go deeper, reusing the same name, dob, vertical, and context. It also states when to supply context (a described moment like a listing meeting) and names the siblings that must not be used to obtain or deepen a read.

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