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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses the default payload shape: full profile fields keyed by field_id plus family members, and that the default is 'all information.' That is meaningful behavioral context an annotation cannot carry, though it says nothing about error behavior for unknown ids.

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 tight sentences front-load the core action and return shape, with the API endpoint mapping appended for reference. Slightly dense mid-sentence, but no wasted clauses.

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 does the work of describing the return shape (profile fields keyed by field_id, family members), which is exactly what an agent needs. It omits not-found/error behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 adds meaning beyond the terse schema text by spelling out what 'all information' actually contains (address, every field by field_id, family members) rather than just 'Defaults to true.'

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 and resource ('Fetch one person's profile by id') and explicitly scopes to a single person, distinguishing it from the sibling breeze_list_people and breeze_get_event. An agent can pick this over the list tool without opening the schema.

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 a concrete companion-tool instruction: 'Pair with breeze_list_profile_fields to label the field ids,' which is real workflow guidance. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use breeze_list_people for a roster), so it stops short of a 5.

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