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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so credit goes to what's added: the explicit guarantee that 'health information is never returned' — a genuinely useful data-scope disclosure an agent cannot get from structured fields — plus the full breadth of the returned record and the underlying HTTP endpoint.

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 compact sentences: the return surface is front-loaded in the first, and the exclusion plus endpoint trail behind it. The long field list earns its length because there is no output schema documenting those fields.

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 field enumeration is essential and present, and the health-data exclusion sets a clear expectation. Remaining gaps are minor: no note on behavior for an unknown/archived id or on permission requirements.

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 0%, so the schema carries only the UUID pattern with no prose. The description compensates partially by saying 'by id' and showing GET /people/{id}, clarifying that a single person identifier is expected, but it adds no format hint or guidance on where to obtain the id.

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 with explicit cardinality: 'One person's full record by id.' The enumeration of returned sections (names, DOB, jobs, work rights, custom fields) plus the GET /people/{id} endpoint makes it unambiguous and clearly distinct from intellihr_list_people and intellihr_get_job.

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?

'By id' implies the precondition (you must already have a person id, so you need list_people first if not), but the description never names intellihr_list_people as the lookup alternative or intellihr_update_person as the mutation counterpart. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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