get_person

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it warns the tree is community-edited, that conflations of same-named people are common, that returned data is a hint rather than evidence, and that an access token is required. This is exactly the caveat an agent needs before trusting the output.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers returns, workflow, caveats, and auth in short, distinct paragraphs. No sentence is redundant and each adds a decision-relevant fact.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns ('names, sex and facts'), and it also supplies the data-quality caveat and auth requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result cautiously.

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% and the single person_id parameter already carries a format example ('K2ZP-VY1'). The description adds no further parameter syntax or meaning, so the baseline 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 enumerates the returned content (names, sex, facts). It also names a sibling workflow (get_person_sources), letting an agent place it among the many get_*/search_* tools.

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?

Provides clear usage context ('use it to find records') and routes the agent to the usual next call, get_person_sources on the same id. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule versus siblings like get_record or search_records.

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