get_communication_guidance

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: an ambiguous name returns candidates rather than guidance. This discloses fallback behavior that an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations. It does not discuss other behaviors like rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only retrieval tool the annotation and this fallback disclosure are reasonably sufficient.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence delivers the key parameter and fallback behavior. Both sentences earn their place with no redundant or promotional language.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape does not need to be described. However, all three parameters are optional, and the description does not explain what happens if neither person nor person_id is supplied, nor does it clarify the meaning or optionality of situation. These are meaningful gaps given the low schema coverage and the fact that this appears to be a person-dependent guidance tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does clarify person_id and person: person_id should come from resolve_person, while person can be a name or alias resolved inline, with ambiguity returning candidates. However, the situation parameter is left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description, which is a notable gap for a communication-advice tool.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action ('Return') and its resource ('sensitivity-gated signal for client-composed communication advice'), so an agent can understand the basic purpose. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_person_context or set_communication_philosophy, but the resource is distinctive enough to avoid obvious confusion.

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 gives concrete usage context: pass person_id from resolve_person, or pass person as a name or alias for inline resolution, and notes that ambiguous names return candidates instead of guidance. This is clear operational guidance, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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