get_person

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the person's right is required and that profile images are omitted, but 'the persons right' is ambiguous and error or not-found behavior is not described.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, with the core read operation stated first. It wastes little space, though 'wbservicesbasic.personenDetails' is internal jargon and 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description provides the permission requirement and an output limitation, while annotations cover safety behavior. It still leaves out returned fields beyond image omission and any personId format or acquisition guidance, which matters because there is no output schema.

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%, and the description never mentions personId, its expected format, or where to obtain a valid value. The single parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('Read') against a specific resource and adds that profile images are omitted, which narrows what the tool returns. However, the resource is an internal endpoint name and the description does not distinguish this result from sibling tools such as search_persons, so it falls short of fully self-contained purpose clarity.

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 get_person instead of alternatives like search_persons or get_identity, nor any note on when not to use it. At best, usage is implied by the read-only nature of the operation.

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