get_person

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic operation. For a read-only lookup tool this is relatively low-risk, so the absence of annotation coverage is somewhat mitigated. However, it doesn't disclose any behavior like null returns, errors on missing IDs, or auth requirements.

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 clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter lookup tool.

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 single-parameter get-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is reasonably complete. The description plus schema cover the essentials. One could argue for error/not-found behavior notes, but for this simple tool the coverage is adequate.

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%, with the single 'id' parameter fully described in the schema as 'The ID of the person to retrieve.' The description adds no new semantic content beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve') with a clear resource ('person') and scope ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_people (plural, retrieves all) and get_tasks. While it's clear, it doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling retrieval tools, which keeps it at a 4 rather than 5.

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 implies a basic lookup use case (retrieving by ID) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. get_people, or any context like error behavior when ID doesn't exist. It's adequate but minimal—clear context for a simple lookup tool, but no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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