get_person

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves data (implied read-only behavior) and lists the types of information returned, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear for a tool with no annotation support.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on returns and parameters. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and key input, the second lists output details, and the third clarifies parameter usage with examples. There is no wasted text, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and output content adequately. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error cases or data freshness, slightly reducing completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It clearly explains the 'slug' parameter as 'the person's URL slug' and provides concrete examples ('bill-clinton', 'ghislaine-maxwell'), adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. This effectively documents the single parameter's purpose and 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 states the specific action ('Get full detail for a specific person'), identifies the resource ('person'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on individual retrieval rather than search operations like 'search_persons' or 'cross_search'. It explicitly mentions what information is returned, making the purpose distinct and comprehensive.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need detailed information about a specific person identified by their URL slug. It implies an alternative by mentioning sibling tools like 'search_persons' for broader searches, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly with all alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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