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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, and the description adds a valuable behavioral caveat: emails and names are masked unless the caller has people.pii.read. This PII-permission dependency is exactly the kind of context annotations do not provide.

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?

The description is two tight sentences, front-loads the dossier contents, and immediately follows with the important PII caveat. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 single-record tool with no output schema, the description gives a useful summary of returned fields and the PII masking condition. It could say more about missing-record behavior or the app/personId relationship, but the annotations and schema cover most remaining needs.

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 67%, with descriptions for app and environment but none for personId. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond implying single-person retrieval, so the schema remains the primary source of parameter meaning.

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 clearly identifies the resource as one person's dossier and lists the kinds of data returned, so an agent can tell this is a single-person read rather than a list or search. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like search_people or update_person, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The required personId implies retrieval for a known person, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_people or update_person. There are no stated preconditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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