get_staff

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

With annotations readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the agent knows it is safe and that the results may be incomplete. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what is already in the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, but adds no extra context such as that the person might not be found or that data may vary.

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, compact sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, schema coverage complete, output schema present, and annotations covering safety), the description is adequate. However, it does not mention what the return value will look like, even though an output schema exists. It also does not mention that the person might not be found or how to handle that, but the openWorldHint may imply data is world-open. Overall, it is minimal but not dangerously incomplete.

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 description covers 100% of parameters, and the schema already provides a helpful example ('36131'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline is 3. The description does not explain the semantics of the fields returned, but parameter semantics for the id is well-covered by the schema.

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 the verb 'get' and the resource 'one person', specifying that it returns 'Contact details, room and affiliations'. It is concise and unambiguous; however, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_staff, though the distinction is inferable from the name and the singular resource.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage by describing the output, but there are no alternative names or conditions. The sibling tool search_staff likely returns a list of people, and this tool gets details for one, but this is not stated.

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