Get Person History

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the categories of content returned (past meetings, topics, commitments, outcomes). However, it says nothing about permissions, result size/limits, pagination, or whether history is scoped to a workspace, leaving real behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the enumerated content. No filler, no restating of the title, and every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter read tool with a full output schema, the description adequately frames what the tool returns and why. The absence of annotations means some behavioral detail (limits, scoping) is arguably missing, but the core need is well covered.

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% and there is a single 'name' parameter already documented as 'Full or partial name of the person to look up.' The description mentions 'a specific person' but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or ambiguity handling beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('full interaction history with a specific person'), and the second sentence enumerates the content (meetings, topics, commitments, outcomes). It never distinguishes itself from close siblings like research_attendee or search_meeting_history, so an agent cannot disambiguate from this text alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as research_attendee, search_meeting_history, and brief_with_history plausibly overlap, yet the description offers no boundary conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to guide selection.

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