Notable Knowledge Pack

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

The readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint annotations already cover safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: the response includes life_in_days with age/day_number, similar people, birthday peers, and timeline events including day_number. It also discloses a $0.05 cost, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact, information-dense line. It front-loads the default usage, then packs the key response components, the sibling preference, an example, and pricing without wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity, an existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential context: primary use case, response composition, preferred alternative, example, and cost. It does not explain all edge cases, but it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 50%, leaving peers and similar without schema descriptions. The description compensates by mapping 'similar people' and 'birthday peers' to the likely similar and peers parameters. It also gives an example slug, albert-einstein, reinforcing the slug parameter's expected format.

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 identifies this as the default 'who is X' knowledge pack and lists what it contains (profile, life_in_days, similar people, birthday peers). It distinguishes itself from notable_profile with 'Prefer this over notable_profile.' It lacks a strict verb like 'retrieve' but is still unambiguous about the tool's function.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'DEFAULT for who is X.' It also names the alternative, notable_profile, and directs the agent to prefer this tool over it. This is direct routing guidance that leaves little to inference.

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