seerr_get_person

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the annotation already establishes that this is a read-only operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as the scope of 'details', language handling effects, or any prerequisites, so it contributes nothing beyond what annotations already provide.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately compact for a simple getter, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Although the tool is simple (2 params, read-only annotation, output schema present), the description is too sparse to be considered complete. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and any behavioral notes, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 0%, and the description does not mention or explain any parameters. While the parameter names (person_id, language) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value to clarify their meaning or the impact of the language parameter, leaving an agent to infer usage from names alone.

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 'Get person details' clearly states the action (get) and resource (person details), making the tool's purpose easy to understand. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like seerr_get_person_combined_credits, which also retrieves person-related information, so it falls short of a 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as seerr_get_person_combined_credits or other detail-fetching tools. There are no context cues, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions, so an agent gets no help in selecting this tool over siblings.

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