Get a person (by id)

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the exact HTTP endpoint, confirms there is no request body, and provides a reference link, which is useful but not extensive behavioral context.

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 short, scannable, and front-loaded with the action. The opening phrase slightly duplicates the title, but the endpoint, body note, and reference are all purposeful and non-redundant overall.

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 single-person GET operation with strong annotations and a schema that already documents the query parameters, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by explicitly stating what the response contains or when to prefer this over listing tools, but nothing critical is missing.

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 documents the required personID path parameter and the query object's behavior (embed, offset/limit pagination). The description adds little parameter meaning beyond the endpoint notation showing personID, but it does clarify that no body fields are needed.

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 names a specific verb (Get), resource (person), and qualifier (by id), and the endpoint makes the target unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools like xmatters_get_people.

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 this tool is for retrieving a single person when a personID is known, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives such as get_people for listing or searching. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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