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. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: direct single-record access bypasses the privacy filtering that bulk/list tools apply, which an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Two short paragraphs, zero filler. The return-field list is front-loaded in the first sentence and the when-to-use/privacy guidance follows, so an agent gets the essential shape immediately.

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, but the description compensates by enumerating the fields returned, and the read-only annotation covers the safety profile. For a single-record fetch this is nearly complete; only incidental details like what happens when the handle is not found are unstated.

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 only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself giving the format and example ('I0001'). The description adds no additional parameter syntax or constraints, and per the high-coverage baseline a 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Get full detail for one person') and enumerates the returned facets (name, gender, events with citation counts, attributes, family links, media count). This distinguishes it from siblings such as get_family, get_event, and 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 clear usage contexts: 'inspect someone before adding facts' and 'check whether an event is already cited.' It also carves out a when-this-is-permitted rule (direct lookup allowed for living/private people, only bulk/list tools filter them). It does not, however, name a competing lookup alternative such as get_object or query_objects for the caller to compare against.

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