get_person

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that profiles are LLM-generated with draft review status, others' evaluations are verbatim from public editions and traceable, and appended historical evaluations. The database scope (pre-Qin to Han-Wei) is also stated. This provides good transparency about data quality and sourcing.

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 concise (four sentences in Chinese) and front-loaded with the main function. Each sentence adds relevant detail (content types, source traceability, review status). No redundant information.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately outlines what the tool returns (profile, evaluations, events with sources). It also notes data quality and historical scope. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output and limitations.

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 a schema description listing examples and acceptable formats. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 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?

The description states the tool retrieves person profiles, others' evaluations, and involved events with sources. It clearly specifies the verb '查' (query) and the resource (person). The tool name and description distinguish it from siblings like query_by_place (place query) and query_by_quality (quality query).

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 implies use for comprehensive person lookup but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives such as search_events (event-only) or query_by_quality. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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