get_individual

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Return'), discloses the contents of the response, and specifies the error behavior for non-existent records. It could mention auth/rate limits, but for a simple read-by-id tool this is strong coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause earns its place. It avoids redundancy and fluff.

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 simple one-parameter input, the presence of an output schema, and the tool's complexity, the description is complete: it covers accepted id formats, the nature of the returned record, and the error case. The mention of workspace content schema also informs the user about shaping of external_ids.

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%, but the description compensates by defining 'id' as an INDI record identifier and providing accepted formats ('@I123@' or 'I123'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on constraints like max length or data type edge cases, so not a 5.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full INDI record for id'), and enumerates included data (events, residences, sources, etc.), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_family or find_individual. Even without an explicit sibling comparison, the scope is unambiguous.

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 usage when you have an individual id and need the full record, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. The error message provides some guidance for missing ids, but no when/not-when comparisons to siblings are given.

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