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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the response includes family members and, by default, every profile field keyed by field_id, which the agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the operation and its return contents, with no filler. The trailing REST endpoint note is mildly redundant but harmless and short.

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 burden of explaining return values and does so adequately: address, all profile fields keyed by field_id, and family members. A note on failure behavior for a missing id is the only notable omission.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description reinforces that all profile fields are returned by default, which clarifies the details=true default, and explains the field_id keying convention. It adds meaning beyond the schema's terse parameter descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (one person's profile by id) and enumerates the returned contents: address, all profile fields keyed by field_id, and family members. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling breeze_list_people, which lists many 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?

Gives clear context for correct use by telling the agent to pair the call with breeze_list_profile_fields to resolve field ids, and implies the single-person scope. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs list_people), so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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