get_person_relations

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

With no annotations, the description relies on its own wording. It discloses the current-vs-historical scope and names the KRS as the source, which adds context, but it omits details about side effects, authentication needs, or data freshness. The read-only nature is at least implied by 'Get'.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part of the description carries meaning and the core scope is presented first.

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 two-parameter read operation with an output schema available, the description plus schema covers the essential call semantics. It is slightly incomplete in not offering any routing guidance or caveats about historical relation semantics, but the tool is small enough that this is not a major gap.

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 documents 'status' but leaves 'id' undescribed. The description's phrase 'a person's ... relations' clarifies that the 'id' parameter identifies a person, compensating for the schema coverage gap. The status parameter behavior is already covered in 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('a person's current or historical relations with organizations'), and the data source ('recorded in the KRS'). It distinguishes this tool from organization-oriented siblings like get_organization_relations, making selection straightforward.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_organization_relations. The intended context is implied by the resource wording, but no exclusions or routing hints are provided.

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