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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description only restates the REST endpoint (GET /people/{id}), which is redundant with readOnlyHint and adds no new behavioral context such as error behavior for a missing id or the cost of the openWorld lookup.

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 with zero filler; the core purpose (one person by id) is front-loaded and the endpoint acts as a compact identifier. Nothing needs trimming.

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 tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient. It is thin on what 'all their details' actually returns and on failure modes, but nothing critical to 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 description coverage is 100%, so both person_id and include_custom_fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond it, which is the baseline case for a fully covered schema.

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 scope: fetch a single person by id, returning full details. It implicitly separates itself from teamgate_list_people and teamgate_search by the 'one person by id' framing, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'One person by id' hints at when to use it (single-record lookup), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over teamgate_list_people, teamgate_search, or teamgate_list_company_people, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid id.

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