get_person

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a GET/read operation and hints that full records are the default unless reduced via `fields`. However, it does not mention response shape, error behavior for missing IDs, or permission requirements, which would be valuable for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 terse sentences, each earning its place. The primary action is front-loaded, the endpoint is embedded naturally, and the two follow-up sentences provide pragmatic guidance without 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?

For a simple read-by-id tool with no output schema and only three parameters, the description covers the core invocation path and even advises on optimizing payloads and handling custom fields. A minor gap is the absence of any expected return shape or error semantics, but given the tool's simplicity and the guiding notes, it is substantially complete.

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 67%, and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains why `fields` exists (request only what you need, avoid full records) and warns that custom field names must be discovered via list_custom_fields rather than invented. This goes beyond the schema's bare parameter type descriptions.

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 specific verb + resource ('Retrieve a person by id') and includes the exact endpoint (GET /people/{id}). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_people (collection), update_person (mutation), and get_person_attachment (different resource).

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 explicit guidance on when to use the `fields` parameter ('when scanning many people') and instructs calling list_custom_fields first to discover exact field names rather than guessing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for this action, but the context is clear enough to route an agent.

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