Meeting brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the return format (Markdown, one page) and the semantic contents of the brief, which is the main thing an agent needs to decide whether to call it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the deliverable first and then its contents. No waste, though the parenthetical "(Markdown)" sits in slightly awkward position.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains the format and content of what comes back and the schema supplies the id semantics. Missing only explicit routing against sibling tools.

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 the single parameter's meaning (a person id from kisi_ara) is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no further parameter detail, so baseline 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 concrete deliverable (one-page Markdown brief about a person) and enumerates its sections: talking points, open promises, mutual connections, recent contacts. This is clearly distinct from the sibling lookups (kisi_ara, kisi_karti, son_gorusmeler), though it never names them, so the 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?

"before meeting someone" implies the intended moment of use, which is genuine context, but there is no explicit statement of when-not to use it or how it relates to kisi_karti or son_gorusmeler. Usage is inferable, not spelled out.

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