get_individual

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that relatives and citations are part of the return payload, which is useful context, but it omits any optionality or file-selection behavior. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 lists the contents efficiently with no wasted words. It is compact and well-structured, though the enumerated list is dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value formatting need not be explained. However, for a record-fetch tool that may require a file context, the description does not address how the optional file parameter interacts with single-file vs multi-file setups, leaving a small gap.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents id, file, include_notes, and include_sources. The description adds almost no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when coverage is high.

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 opens with a clear verb phrase, 'Full record for one individual,' and enumerates what the record contains (names, events, notes, citations, relatives). It distinguishes itself from list/search siblings by implying a single-record fetch, though it doesn't name a sibling directly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer search_individuals or list_files, and no prerequisites such as the required id pattern. The agent must infer the use case from the name and description alone.

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