get_consolidation_context

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses concrete behavior: no writes, sensitive/restricted records are never returned, ordinary evidence only, unknown/removed person yields found:false, and signals are computed from normalized values and inclusive validity periods only. It also states the tool 'decides nothing,' which is important behavioral context for an autonomous agent.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then parameters, then use context, signal semantics, and safety guarantees. Despite length, each sentence carries distinct information necessary for safe and correct use, with no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context, signal taxonomy, maintenance workflow, privacy behavior, and error behavior (found:false). It leaves no operationally critical gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains person_id and person ('Pass person_id from resolve_person, or person... to resolve inline') but does not explain limit or how the two identification parameters interact when both or neither are provided. The description adds real meaning for the core parameters but leaves one schema field undocumented.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one person's stored facts, traits, and observations plus how they relate'), making the tool's scope unambiguous. The maintenance-focused use and signal names separate it from siblings like get_person_context and get_person_timeline.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this before proposing maintenance' and explains that reading evidence and proposing correct_record, supersede_fact, or merge_people is the agent's job. This gives a clear when-to-use instruction and routes downstream actions, even though it doesn't name a negative alternative.

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