get_person

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

'Returns' makes the read-only nature reasonably clear, and 'wraps NBAPI GetPerson' adds a useful reference. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not mention error behavior, authentication needs, or response format.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the core behavior and API wrapper are stated upfront. It earns its place entirely.

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 get-by-ID tool with a complete parameter schema, this is adequate but minimal. It omits usage alternatives, return-shape expectations, and any edge cases, which matters more since there is no output schema and no annotations.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond naming PERSONID and calling the result 'full,' which is acceptable but not additive.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('full person record') keyed by PERSONID, so an agent can tell this is a direct lookup tool. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling search_person_data, though the PERSONID-based lookup strongly implies it.

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 usage context is only implied: an agent would call this when it has a PERSONID and needs the full person record. It provides no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives like search_person_data.

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