get_person

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, lowering the bar. The description contributes the scope of the return ('full person record') and traces provenance to the underlying NBAPI GetPerson call, but says nothing about what happens when the PERSONID does not exist or what fields the full record contains.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the return value and the required key before the parenthetical provenance note. Nothing is redundant and 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for describing the returned record; 'full person record' only gestures at it. For a simple ID lookup with a fully documented schema and a read-only annotation, this is adequate but leaves the return shape and not-found behavior unexplained.

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 — including the optional ALLPARTITIONS, WANTCREDENTIALID, and ACCESSLEVELDETAILS flags — are already documented in the schema. The description mentions only PERSONID and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — 'Returns the full person record for a given PERSONID' — which is unambiguous and names the exact identifier needed. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_person_data, which is the closest adjacent tool, so it falls 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?

Usage is only implied by the presence of the PERSONID parameter; there is no explicit statement of when to use this lookup versus search_person_data or other person-related retrievals. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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