Get a person's supervisors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the endpoint and 'Body fields: none', which is minimal behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations, and the added value beyond annotations is low, so 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 succinct, front-loads the purpose, and includes the endpoint and reference link without any fluff. Every piece is useful, and the structure is clean and efficient.

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, read-only tool with one required path parameter, an optional query parameter (documented in schema), and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It provides the endpoint, notes there is no body, and gives a reference. It could mention expected response shape but that is not required given the annotations and schema.

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 50%: path is fully described (personId required), and query has a description explaining pagination and array handling. The tool description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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) and resource (a person's supervisors), and includes the exact endpoint. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like xmatters_get_a_group_39_s_supervisors by the explicit 'person' in the name and description.

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 (when you need supervisors of a person) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of similar tools like group supervisors. The endpoint and title make the context obvious but do not proactively route the agent.

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