Get a person's devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and path, and notes 'Body fields: none', which is minor extra context. It does not disclose pagination behavior or error handling, but given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence plus a technical reference and a body-fields note. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every element (endpoint, body note, reference) is useful and non-redundant. 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?

For a simple GET operation, the description provides the core purpose and endpoint. The query schema already documents pagination and additional parameters, and the output schema is absent, so return-value details are not required. Missing details like error responses are minor for a read-only, idempotent tool with strong annotations.

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 schema has 50% coverage: the query parameter includes a useful description (pagination, embed, phoneNumberFormat), while the path parameter personId is not described in the schema. The description does not explain any parameters, leaving personId's meaning implicit. Since coverage is moderate, the description should compensate but does not, though the parameter name is self-explanatory.

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 action 'Get a person's devices' and provides the exact endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like get_a_device (single device) and get_devices (all devices) by scoping to a specific person. The verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 makes it clear when to use: when you need the devices belonging to a particular person. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the resource in the path (personId) and the tool name strongly imply the usage context. No misleading guidance.

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