Get Full Persona

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description explains error behavior in detail: it never raises a protocol error, instead returning a structured error object with fix suggestions. The example return format and the note about correcting input add valuable context not present in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear purpose sentence, followed by premium/availability, a concrete input/output example, error-handling behavior, and a retry safety note. Every sentence contributes unique information, with no redundancy or fluff.

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-only tool with one parameter, the description is complete: it covers purpose, premium restriction, example usage, return shape, error handling, and retry safety. The annotations cover safety, and the provided example compensates for the lack of an explicit output schema. The description fully equips an agent to invoke and recover from errors.

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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter 'slug' with 'exactly as returned by search_catalog' (100% schema coverage). The description adds a concrete example value, but this illustrates rather than expands semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Load a product's complete persona definition.' This uses a distinct verb ('load') and resource ('complete persona definition'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_full_product or get_full_skill. The example and error behavior further reinforce what the tool does.

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 includes usage conditions: 'PREMIUM (paid plan)' indicates when access is restricted, and 'after correcting the input it is always safe to retry' provides a clear retry guideline. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., when to use this over get_full_product), so it stops short of a 5.

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