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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered for free. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that — no error behavior (e.g., unknown id), no permission requirements, no indication of what the response contains. The REST line merely restates the operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Folk REST: GET /v1/people/{id}' line adds minor API-reference value but is largely redundant with the tool name.

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?

For a simple single-param read with annotations covering readOnly and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. Since no output schema exists, the description would ideally hint at what a person record returns or how a missing id behaves, which it does not.

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?

There is a single id parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, encoding, or example detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (get) and resource (single person/contact) keyed by id, which is unambiguous against folk_list_people and the other get_* tools. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with folk_get_current_user or folk_list_people, so it's clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as folk_list_people or folk_get_current_user. Usage is only inferable from the tool name itself.

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