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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not disclose what data the card returns, whether either parameter is required to resolve a person, or what happens when both email and object_id are omitted (required params = 0).

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?

It is a single short sentence, which is appropriately sized and front-loaded. But the trailing clause 'for a view drawing a person_card' is redundant jargon that consumes space without adding information, so it is not fully efficient.

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 tool with 100% schema coverage this is roughly the minimum viable, but with no output schema the description should ideally convey what the returned 'card' contains. It leaves the return shape entirely unspecified, which is a real gap given there is no structured return documentation.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about how email vs object_id are used or whether one takes precedence, leaving the schema to carry the full load.

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 the resource ('relationship card for one person') and implies retrieval, distinguishing it from get_company_card and get_object_card by scope. However, it never states what the card actually contains or what 'relationship card' means, and the phrase 'for a view drawing a person_card' is circular jargon that restates the tool name rather than clarifying the purpose.

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, no mention of alternatives (get_company_card, get_object_card, get_connection_details), and no indication of when this tool is preferred over those siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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