Person Photos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the exact return structure (photos array with id, url, is_primary, created_at), the fact that inline MCP image attachments are included for chat rendering, and the cost/auth requirements ($0.10; API key required). This adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core function, then provides the return format, attachments, and cost/auth in a compact parenthetical. Every piece of information earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, clear purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: it states what it does, what it returns, the input, and even cost/auth. It is complete for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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%, so the description must compensate. It says 'Accepts person_id,' which is minimal but does imply person_id refers to the CRM contact from the opening. However, it does not elaborate on the type, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already states, so it only marginally adds meaning.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves gallery image URLs for a CRM contact, which is a specific verb+resource. It also describes the return shape and the input parameter, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools like get_photos_for_event or get_photos_for_place by the explicit 'CRM contact' context.

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 provides implied usage context by stating it is for a CRM contact, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or give conditions for when to use this tool versus other photo-related tools such as search_photos or get_photos_for_event. There is no direction on exclusions or when not to use it.

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