Staff member details

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

Annotations already specify readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context beyond those. It does so by enumerating the fields returned (email, phone, role, office hours) and disclosing that the profile photo is included inline, giving a clear picture of the response content without contradicting the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs all key information (resource, fields, photo) without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates the response contents (the listed fields and inline photo). It could specify the return format structure or note what happens if the staff member is not found, but these are minor gaps given the straightforward nature and strong annotations.

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 both user_id and include_photo having descriptions. The description adds only minimal context about include_photo ('profile photo inline') which is also stated in the schema, so it does not elevate beyond the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 phrase 'Full profile for one staff member' and lists concrete fields (email, phone, role, office hours) and inline photo, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_directory (a list) or get_post (content).

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 the tool is for retrieving a single staff member's full profile, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of other directory or profile tools. The schema hints that user_id comes from get_directory, providing indirect guidance, but the description itself lacks direct exclusion or alternative references.

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