get_person

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the crucial behavioral caveat that the tree is community-edited, that conflations of same-named people are common, that the result is 'a hint where to look, not evidence,' and that an access token is required. That is substantive context the structured fields do not carry.

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?

Four short paragraphs, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by next-step routing, a data-quality caveat, and auth. All sentences earn their place, though the caveat paragraph could arguably be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does describe the returned content ('names, sex and facts'), the reliability of that content, and the auth requirement. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps such as return shape detail or error behavior for an invalid id.

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?

There is a single person_id parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself supplying the format example ('K2ZP-VY1'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one person from the FamilySearch shared tree') and immediately scopes what it returns ('names, sex and facts'), which cleanly separates it from sibling readers like get_person_relatives, get_person_memories and get_person_sources.

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?

Gives explicit usage context ('Use it to find records') and names the concrete follow-up call ('get_person_sources on the same id is usually the next call, because it leads out of the tree towards a document'), plus a caution on how to treat the result. An agent knows both when and how to proceed.

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