get_person

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the description adds relevant behavior by noting the response includes all fields plus travel documents (i.e., no projection or field selection). It says nothing about behavior when the id is unknown, permissions required, or response size, so the added context is modest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key detail (all fields, including travel documents) is stated immediately. It is efficient, if sparse.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the minimum by sketching the return shape (all fields, plus travel documents). However, for a lookup-by-id tool it leaves the id's meaning and not-found behavior unaddressed, so it is only 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?

The single parameter is named "id" with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning — but it never states that the id is a person identifier or what format it takes. The one behavioral hint (travel documents are included) concerns output, not the parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get ... a saved person") and clarifies the scope of the return (all fields, including travel documents). It is clearly distinct from list_persons by being singular, though it never names that sibling or otherwise differentiates itself explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_persons for discovery or update_person for modification. The phrase "saved person" faintly implies the record must already exist, but no prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are stated.

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