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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context annotations do not: the result is scoped to the authenticated user's own CRM data (an access boundary) and includes relationship types in the returned payload. No output schema exists, so this return-shape detail is genuinely additive.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The scope constraint and lookup key lead, with the uuid-sourcing hint following, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 single-uuid lookup with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers the resource, access scope, input provenance, and the shape of the relationship data returned. It does not enumerate the other fields the person object likely carries, leaving a small gap for an agent that needs to know exactly what comes back.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'The person's uuid.', so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by telling the agent which sibling tools produce valid uuid values, which is meaningful usage semantics the schema does not supply.

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 names a specific resource (a CRM person) and pins down the scope with the access qualifier 'one of the authenticated user's' plus a uuid lookup key. It also enumerates the associated payload (company relationships: employee, individual investor, intro source), which separates it from get_company and list_people. The only weakness is an implied rather than explicit verb ('retrieves/returns'), which the name 'defaults to, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 gives clear actionable context by telling the agent exactly where valid uuids originate (list_people, list_notes, get_company), which is a real prerequisite for calling it correctly. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over list_people or search, so there are no explicit exclusions, but the routing guidance is concrete.

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