get_person

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot express: single-object lookups bypass the living/private filter that bulk/list tools apply. It stops short of noting error behavior for an unknown handle or result-size limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and followed by the privacy rule and usage triggers. The parenthetical '(this is your own local tool)' is mildly redundant, but nothing else wastes space.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, and it covers the one non-obvious behavioral rule for this tool. Missing only minor details such as failure mode on a bad handle or how citation counts are scoped.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the example handle 'I0001', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the implication of a single-valued lookup, which is the baseline case.

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 (get) and resource (person) and enumerates the exact payload: name, gender, events with citation counts, family links, media count. An agent can distinguish this from get_family, get_object or search_people 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 two concrete triggers: inspecting someone before adding facts, and checking whether an event is already cited. It also carves out the privacy boundary versus bulk/list siblings, though it never names a specific alternative tool the way an explicit when/when-not statement would.

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