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 burden. The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it returns candidates instead of guessing when ambiguous, which is genuinely valuable and non-obvious behavior. It doesn't cover what the output looks like, but with an output schema present, the bar is somewhat lower. Reads clearly as non-destructive given 'Get'.

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 sentences, both information-dense. The first states the purpose, the second adds the critical ambiguity-handling behavior. Zero wasted words.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema present, this is reasonably complete. The ambiguity-return behavior is disclosed, and the output schema presumably documents the return format. Could benefit from mentioning what 'full record' includes, but that's likely captured in the output schema, so not a major gap.

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 0% with a single 'name' parameter. The description doesn't add any specifics about the name format (partial vs exact, case sensitivity, etc.), though the ambiguity note hints that partial-matching may occur. The parameter is simple enough that the baseline isn't severely harmed, but no additional semantic value is added beyond the schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get one person's full record.' The differentiation from siblings is implied ('one person' vs search_people which presumably returns multiple). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from search_people, and the alternative to look up people is clearly search_people. The ambiguity-return behavior ('Returns candidates...') adds useful scoping.

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 states 'Get one person's full record' implying this is for a single known person, and the ambiguity note suggests when the exact person is unclear it returns candidates. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs search_people, nor does it state when-not-to-use it. The context is somewhat clear (single record lookup) but lacks explicit alternatives.

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