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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that include embeds related records in the response and that this maps to GET /people/{id}, but it does not mention permissions, errors, or pagination behavior.

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 short sentences and front-loads the essential resource and lookup key. The HTTP endpoint detail is slightly redundant but still useful and not wasteful.

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 read-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and clear read-only annotations, the description gives enough to call it correctly. It does not need to explain return values because there is no output schema, though more detail on the included records might help.

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%, so the schema already documents person_id as a UUID from street_list_people and include as a constrained enum of ownedProperties and applicants. The description only restates the include purpose at a high level, so baseline 3 is 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?

The description states a specific resource (person), a specific lookup key (UUID), and the optional include behavior. It clearly distinguishes this from list endpoints, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling get tools such as street_get_tenant or street_get_user.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus street_list_people or the many other get tools. The only hint is that a UUID is required, which implicitly points to a known-ID lookup, but no alternatives or preconditions are stated.

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