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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds the genuinely new context: include_image is off by default to save tokens and returns a small WebP thumbnail under ~100 KB. It also clarifies that technologies listed are 'confirmed' rather than inferred, which is real behavioral information.

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 return payload, then the optional flag, then a concrete invocation example. Slightly dense in the field enumeration, but every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, yet the description still orients the agent on content. Both parameters are covered and an example is provided; only failure behavior for an unknown slug is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 the schema already documents slug's pattern/example and include_image's default and token rationale. The description restates include_image as a 'small preview of their site' but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 exact resource (one person's profile) and enumerates the payload an agent will receive: role, bio, website, social links, studios, confirmed technologies, and Tangent work. The singular scoping ('One person's profile') cleanly separates it from list_people and search_people.

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?

Usage is only implied: supply a slug to fetch one person, and set include_image for a site preview. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-list_people/search_people guidance or any exclusion (e.g. what to do when the slug is unknown).

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