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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly lists what data will be returned, but does not disclose potential limitations, error behavior, or whether any data could be absent for certain IDs. The read-only nature is implied but never stated.

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 entire description is one focused sentence, with the lookup method and a comprehensive list of returned content. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters, one required and one optional, and an output schema is present, the description is mostly sufficient but has gaps: it fails to clarify the purpose of 'fields' or any special behavior such as minimum required fields or response shape. A bit more detail would round out the context.

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 for the parameters is 0%, and the description does not mention the optional 'fields' parameter at all. It only describes the output fields for the profile, leaving an agent unaware that the result can be filtered or that fields defaults to null.

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 names the resource ('人物画像' / person profile) and the action ('按人物ID查询' / query by person ID), and it lists the key data fields included. While it doesn't name a sibling tool, the ID-based lookup is distinct from the search tools like 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?

The description implies the intended use case: when you have a person ID and need a full profile, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest an alternative for scenarios like searching by name or fuzzy matching.

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