Get Person Profile

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds significant behavioral context: PII sensitivity, required tier and purpose confirmation, and minor blocking. This goes well beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences tightly packed with all essential information. No redundant phrases. Excellent front-loading of tool purpose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately lists key return fields. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the exact structure (e.g., nested objects). Overall sufficient for agent usage.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description adds that purpose is required for accounts with purpose confirmation, which is a valuable semantic hint beyond 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 it returns an aggregated person profile with specific fields (name, birth year, roles, shareholdings, AML/PEP hits). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on specific subsets like roles or companies.

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 specifies prerequisites (search_full_enabled tier, F10.11 purpose confirmation) and restrictions (minors blocked except super-admin). It implies when to use this aggregated tool over more specific person tools, but does not explicitly list alternatives.

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