Get person wishlist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and mutability. The description adds no additional behavioral details, such as return format or edge cases. Since annotations carry the burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no contradiction exists.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and context. Every word contributes value—no fluff or redundancy. This is an appropriately sized description for a simple tool.

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 simple one-parameter getter with robust annotations, the description is largely complete. It communicates the resource (wishlist) and the use case (gift planning). While it does not describe the return structure, the concept of a 'wishlist' is self-explanatory, and the annotations cover behavioral guarantees.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'personName' with a description of 'Family member name or relationship (fuzzy)'. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already specifies, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as returning a family member's wishlist and explicitly states its intended use for gift ideas and birthday/holiday planning. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which mention wishlists. However, the description uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, relying on the title 'Get' to convey the action.

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 a clear usage context: 'for gift ideas and birthday/holiday planning.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is sufficiently specific to guide selection.

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