get_person

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'exact' signals a strict key-based match rather than fuzzy searching, and 'compact' tells the agent the returned profile is deliberately summarized. This is meaningful supplementary context.

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 well-constructed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then states the exact lookup criterion. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 one-parameter, exact-key lookup with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns at a high level ('one compact research profile'), how to look up the person ('exact OSIRIS username'), and the annotations handle safety and consistency concerns. No critical information is missing for selecting or invoking the 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?

The schema gives no description for person_id and coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by establishing that person_id is an OSIRIS username and must be exact, which is the key semantic needed to construct a valid call. It does not provide format examples or case-sensitivity details, but for a single parameter this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one compact research profile'), and a precise lookup method ('by exact OSIRIS username'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling search tools like search_people or search_experts, which imply fuzzy or broader lookups.

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 phrase 'exact OSIRIS username' gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: the caller already knows the precise identifier. It stops short of explicitly naming search_people or search_experts as alternatives for partial or name-based queries, so it loses a point for not stating exclusions.

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