get_person_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It's clearly a read-only operation (says 'Get' and 'Shows'), and mentions what interactions are included (emails, meetings, etc.). However, it doesn't disclose the output format/structure, whether data is chronological, or any caveats about completeness—moderate but not minimal coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, zero fluff. The essence and a usage hint are front-loaded in the first sentence. The 'Useful for preparing...' line adds genuine value rather than filler. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required, both well-documented in schema) and has an output schema to convey return value structure. The description covers purpose and usage context effectively. Given the simplicity of the tool, the completeness is adequate—though a note on result ordering or time window scope would push it higher.

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 already documents both parameters (email and limit with default of 5). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, though it does clarify 'recent' and the interaction types. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 verb+resource ('Get recent interaction history with a person') and specifies the scope (recent interactions like emails, meetings). It's understandable in isolation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_relationship_summary or get_meeting_context, which could overlap conceptually.

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 gives useful context ('Useful for preparing for meetings or refreshing your memory') which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly call out when NOT to use it or name alternative sibling tools like get_relationship_summary or get_meeting_context that may serve overlapping purposes.

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