get_person

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature implicitly ('Get', 'Returns'), but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. It adds some context about optional data inclusion, but lacks comprehensive behavioral details for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 with zero waste: first states core purpose, second explains optional data inclusion. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary function.

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 read-only tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and parameter usage. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return format, error handling, and performance considerations that would be helpful given the complexity of optional data inclusion.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning include_all and individual flags, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., performance implications of include_all). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get complete details') and resource ('a person'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_people (which lists multiple people) or update_person (which modifies). It explicitly mentions fetching by record_id and returning all attributes.

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 usage for retrieving detailed person data, including optional related data via flags, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like search_people for broader queries or get_company for different entity types. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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