Get a ChurchTools person

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The only added context is 'the whole record', which is vague and does not disclose whether related data (groups, roles, contact details) is included or whether access is restricted by permissions.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though efficiency here shades into under-specification rather than tight completeness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what 'the whole record' contains, and it does not: no mention of returned fields, related entities, or error behavior for an invalid id. For a single-parameter read tool this leaves the agent guessing at the response.

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% for the single personId parameter (integer, > 0), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or origin, 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?

The sentence identifies a specific resource (one person) and verb (shows/retrieves), and 'the whole record' hints at full retrieval rather than a subset. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling ct_search_persons or ct_get_group, so an agent must infer the boundary between 'get' and 'search' on its own.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. With ct_search_persons and ct_list_group_members in the sibling set, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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