Get life story

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate these. It adds context that the story is 'built from family memories', which is somewhat useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like return format or potential incompleteness. The description does not contradict 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and follows with concise use-case examples. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague wording.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns and when to use it. It could arguably mention the format (e.g., 'returns text') but the term 'written life story' strongly implies narrative text, and no output schema exists to clarify further.

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 schema covers the only parameter (personName) completely with clear semantics. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states it returns the written life story (biography chapters) of a family member, built from family memories. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_person_profile and search_family_memories by emphasizing narrative biography and specific use cases.

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 provides explicit use cases ('tell me about grandma's childhood', writing toasts/speeches/eulogies, family history questions), giving clear context on when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it lacks the when-not/alternatives aspect for a top score.

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