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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the upstream endpoint (GET /api/v2/people/{id}) and the shape of returned data, but says nothing about failure behavior (e.g. unknown id), permissions, or the `linked` section.

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: the purpose and returned payload come first, the endpoint mapping trails. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 carrying the returned-field inventory is genuinely valuable and mostly sufficient for an agent to call it. It stops short of covering error/not-found behavior or permissions, but for a simple read-by-id tool that gap is minor.

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%, and both person_id and the include side-loading parameter are described in the schema itself (including the `linked` section). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Fetch a single person by id') and even enumerates the fields returned. The singular, id-scoped framing implicitly separates it from deskpro_list_people, but no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g. deskpro_list_people or deskpro_search) guidance. The 'by id' phrasing faintly implies a known numeric id is required, but that is inference rather than stated guidance.

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