Person profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the meaning of current=false as a finished term, the cross-reference semantics of ad_id and company_id, and an explicit negative scope ('Contact details and national codes are not returned') that prevents wasted follow-up calls.

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 tight paragraphs with no filler, front-loading what is returned and then following with field semantics and exclusions. The opening is a noun phrase without a verb, which costs a little immediate clarity, but the density of useful information per sentence is high.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so: companies with role types, role dates, gazette ads, plus how to open ad_id and company_id. Missing details such as ordering, result caps, or pagination behavior are the only residual gaps for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including format ('Hex person id') and a concrete example plus provenance. The description adds nothing further about person_id, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.

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 the concrete resource returned — companies a person manages, boards on, or audits, with role dates and latest gazette ads — which is far more specific than the bare name 'rs_person'. It lacks an explicit verb ('Returns ...') and never states that the person's own identity fields are included, but the substance distinguishes it clearly from rs_company and rs_search.

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?

Usage is only implied: the schema's person_id note ('from rs_search(kind='people') or a board row of rs_company') indicates the entry path, and the description tells you which sibling to call next (rs_ad, rs_company). There is no explicit 'use this when ...' or 'do not use for ...' statement, and no guidance on when to prefer rs_search over this tool.

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