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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the response includes status, validity window, and PIN/card number, which goes beyond the annotations and schema.

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?

The description is two compact sentences with zero wasted language. The resource and id scope are front-loaded, followed by the returned fields and endpoint.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete and usefully lists the returned fields despite no output schema. It does not mention not-found behavior or authentication expectations, leaving a minor contextual gap.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage and is already documented as a RemoteLock access person UUID. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description names the specific resource ('access user or guest'), the retrieval scope ('by id'), and the endpoint ('GET /access_persons/{id}'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list and mutation tools such as list_access_persons and deactivate_access_person.

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 'by id' phrasing implies the tool should be used when a specific access person id is known, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus list_access_persons or how to obtain the id. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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