get_person_sources

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses the auth requirement ('Requires an access token'), the community-edited nature of the shared tree, the resulting conflation risk, and the critical framing that output is 'a hint about where to look, not evidence.' That is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot 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?

The core action is front-loaded, but the description runs several paragraphs with rhetorical filler ('the most useful thing in the tree, because it is the way out of it') around genuinely useful caveats. Some of the length does not earn its place for a one-parameter read tool.

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 compensates by explaining what each source carries (a citation, usually an ark to an indexed record) and the per-source 'supports' fields (Name, Birth, Death). That is enough for an agent to interpret the return value without a schema.

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 there is a single required parameter (person_id), so the schema already documents the input. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read the sources attached to a tree person.' It clearly distinguishes sources from the facts a profile holds, which separates it conceptually from get_person. However, it never names a sibling tool, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 clear context for why and when to use it ('the way out of' an unsupported profile) and directs the agent onward to an underlying record to cite instead, implicitly pointing at get_record. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or naming concrete alternatives by name.

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