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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, yet the description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: research items are capped at 50 with the total reported (truncation semantics), empty lists mean the name appears nowhere, the canonical 'Surname, Forename' form is echoed back, and a citable amira_url is returned. These are exactly the edge cases an agent needs.

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 opening clause is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the enumerated facets are dense but purposeful. The trailing edge-case sentence also earns its place; slightly compressed, but no filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well, describing the returned facets, truncation behavior, canonical name echo, and the URL. For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 single 'name' parameter is already fully documented in the schema (ordering and accents). The description's remarks about canonical spelling are about the return value rather than the input parameter, so there is little added parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 verb and resource ('Aggregate everything the collection knows about one person') and enumerates the aggregated facets (affiliations, projects, research items, publications), which clearly sets it apart from the singular get_* tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling search_persons tool, which is the one an agent might confuse it with.

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 implied through the 'Aggregate everything... about one person' framing, and one useful edge-case hint is given ('Works even for names absent from the authority list'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or steering between this and search_persons when the caller only has a partial or ambiguous name.

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