get_person_sources

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: discloses the access-token requirement, warns the shared tree is community-edited with common conflations, and gives semantic guidance on interpreting empty or misaligned source lists. This is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent paragraph carries real guidance rather than filler. It is somewhat editorial and longer than strictly necessary for a one-parameter read tool, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 an attached source contains (citation, ark, supported fact names), the auth requirement, and the reliability caveat. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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 fully documents the single person_id parameter (100% coverage, including a format example), so the description adds nothing parameter-specific. Per the rubric, full schema coverage means a baseline of 3.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Read the sources attached to a tree person.' The resource (attached sources with citations/arks) is clearly distinct from siblings like get_person_memories or get_person_changes, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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 strong context for why and when to call it ('the way out of it', follow a profile to actual documents) and how to interpret results ('a hint where to look, not evidence'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when *not* to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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