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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by disclosing the returned content sections, including that key events come with the passages where they occur — meaningful payload context that is not in any other structured field.

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 front-loaded sentence listing the payload sections in order of likely interest. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations and nothing is wasted.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does list the top-level sections and notes that events are tied to passages. It stops short of describing the response shape or whether family/related-people entries are ids, names, or nested records, which is the remaining gap for a detail tool.

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 100%: the id parameter documents its origin (search_people, get_chapter_study) with an example, and language documents the enum plus English fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, 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 enumerates exactly what a person record contains (summary, family, related people, key events with their passages), which makes the resource and payload clear. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement and does not name sibling tools, so differentiation from search_people rests on the schema's id note.

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?

"One person:" implicitly frames this as the single-entity detail lookup as opposed to the plural search_people, and the schema's id description routes the agent to search_people to obtain an id. However, the description itself contains no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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