Get participant properties

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that authentication uses the configured service account, which is a small behavioral note, but does not disclose other traits like effects of missing participants or rate limits.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, underlying method, and authentication note. No redundant information.

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 available annotations and schema, the description is sufficient for a simple read tool, but it lacks any mention of the return structure or format, which would be helpful since no output schema is provided in the definition.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description hints at the query parameter (matching by token or tid) but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool reads participant properties by token or token-table ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_participant_properties (which writes) and list_participants (which lists all participants).

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 read-only use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_participant_properties or list_participants. Lacks explicit 'when-not' or alternative suggestions.

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