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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: exactly one record is returned, a likelihood score (1-10) accompanies it, and a 404 body signals no match. It stops short of noting auth requirements, rate limits, or how multiple input attributes are combined.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape. The trailing 'API: GET /person/enrich' is mildly redundant but low-cost and could help an agent reason about the call.

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 20-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description compensates by describing the return (one record + likelihood score) and the no-match response. Remaining gaps are authentication and the semantics of combining many optional attributes, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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% across all 20 parameters, so the schema already carries the per-field semantics; this is the baseline case. The description's only addition is the general hint to prefer uniquely-identifying inputs, without saying which parameters those are or how they interact.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: find the single best-matching person profile from identifying attributes. The phrase 'single best-matching' implicitly distinguishes it from the multi-result pdl_person_search, but it never names that sibling or pdl_person_identify, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

'Use uniquely-identifying inputs for best results' gives practical input guidance, and the 404 note implies behavior on failure. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus pdl_person_search, pdl_person_identify, or pdl_autocomplete, which are the tools an agent would realistically weigh against this one.

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