inspect_person

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return payload (biographical summary, geocoded stops, shared encounters, deep-link URL), which implies a read-only operation, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what happens with unknown/ambiguous figure names.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the return contents. The bilingual parentheticals add token weight but help match Chinese-language queries, so they largely earn their place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned artifacts, including the deep-link URL. Combined with full schema coverage for three simple parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior 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%, so the schema already documents lang, stop, and the comma-separated multi-person format with examples. The description reinforces the 2–4 figure comparison constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Query) and a precisely scoped resource: the life/poetry chronicle of a single Chinese historical figure or a 2–4 figure comparison. The person-centric scope implicitly separates it from inspect_place and search_atlas, but no sibling is named 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 two modes (single figure vs. comparative 2–4 figures) imply when to use it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer inspect_place or search_atlas, and no prerequisites or ambiguity-resolution notes.

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