Get Person

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about what data is returned (full details including contact info, education, work experience) and clarifies the relationship with harmonic_lookup_person, enhancing behavioral understanding 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?

The description is efficiently structured with clear sections (purpose, input, returns, when to use), uses bullet points for readability, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core 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 tool's moderate complexity, comprehensive annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description provides complete context. It explains the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, parameter semantics, and return data, compensating for the lack of output schema by detailing what data is returned.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds meaningful context by providing concrete examples of person_id values ('161780079' and URN format) and clarifying that response_format controls output format, which complements the schema's enum description.

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 specific action ('Get full person details by ID') and resource ('person'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like harmonic_lookup_person by emphasizing it's for use after obtaining IDs from other operations. The verb 'Get' combined with the resource 'person details' provides precise purpose.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance in a dedicated section, listing three specific scenarios: after harmonic_get_company_employees, when you have a person ID from another response, and to expand on a person URN from search results. This clearly distinguishes usage from alternatives like harmonic_lookup_person.

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