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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the response includes role, organization, rationale, and quotes, which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about not-found behavior or how the limit constrains the quoted passages.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the identifying concept (one person) is front-loaded. The fragment style omits an action verb, which costs a little clarity for negligible brevity gain.

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 simple two-parameter read with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return contents adequately. It is still thin on the edge cases an agent would want: whether an unknown person errors or returns empty, and how limit interacts with the quoted passages.

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 100%, so both parameters (person id/name and limit 1-50, default 15) are already fully documented in the schema. The phrase 'what they said' hints that limit governs returned passages, but that relationship is only implied, so the description adds no real meaning beyond the schema.

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 (one person in the archive) and enumerates the payload: role, organization, significance, and quotations. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never states the verb and does not distinguish it from siblings like get_organization or get_passage.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of when to call get_person versus get_organization, search_passages, or check_attribution, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid person id.

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