get_person

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is a fetch (read-only) and enumerates the data returned. It also gives concrete input format examples. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication, but for a simple read operation the essential behavior is sufficiently disclosed.

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 description is extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose and one sentence for the parameter format, with an example. Every word adds value, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simple interface (one required parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It already states the return fields, so external users know what to expect. The parameter guidance is thorough, and the tool's low complexity means no additional context is needed.

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 has a single parameter 'person' with only a title and no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's meaning: 'profile url or slug as returned by search_people', and provides concrete examples. This goes far beyond the schema's bare definition and gives the agent the exact format required.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a full SkOs profile,' followed by a list of fields returned (units, position, room, phones, email, www). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_people' and 'list_filter_options' by emphasizing a single profile fetch rather than a search or filter operation.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by specifying that the 'person' parameter should be 'a profile url or slug as returned by search_people'. This implicitly tells the agent to first call search_people to obtain the identifier, then use get_person for the full profile. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the input guideline is strong enough to convey the typical workflow.

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