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 real value by disclosing the aggregation breadth (profile/org/connections/log/meetings/mentions) an agent would not know from the schema. It omits any note on auth scope, latency, or size of the payload.

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 with a colon-delimited inventory of returned facets; every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a broad aggregation tool sharing a namespace with upsert_person and who_knows, the absence of routing guidance and name-semantics detail leaves clear gaps.

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 single parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage and no description text, so the tool definition leaves it entirely unspecified — identifier format, disambiguation for duplicate names, or whether it accepts an email/id. The description, which never mentions the parameter, does nothing to compensate.

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 names a specific resource (a person) and enumerates exactly what the tool surfaces: profile, org, connections, recent log, meetings, mentions. That is a clear, distinguishable retrieval purpose, but it does not differentiate from overlapping siblings such as people_graph, who_knows, or context.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite 17 siblings with clear overlap (people_graph, who_knows, log_interaction, upsert_person). The agent must infer that 'everything about a person' means a broad read rather than the narrower sibling tools.

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