people get person

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no mention of required People API scopes, what empty results look like, or that 'people/me' resolves to the authenticated user rather than a stored contact.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the addressing format immediately following the purpose. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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 one-parameter, fully annotated read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, identifier format, and the 'me' alias. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the other people_* tools, which matters given six siblings in that family.

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 0%, so the description carries the whole burden for the single parameter — and it does: it gives the literal format ('people/c123') and the sentinel value 'people/me' that also serves as the default. It just doesn't explain what happens when the name is malformed or unauthorized.

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 ('Get one contact') plus the addressing scheme ('by resource name'), which cleanly separates it from list/search siblings like people_search_contacts and people_list_connections. It never names those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description tells the agent how to call it but not when to prefer it over people_search_contacts, people_list_connections, or people_search_other_contacts. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision conditions — selection must be inferred from the names alone.

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