person

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context: the exact return envelope, that a missing card is a non-error {found: false}, and the freshness marker vocabulary ([ok], [unverified], [STALE <n>d]) with a warning not to trust stale data. That is substantial disclosure beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then tight sentences on the return shape and the missing-card case. Efficient overall, though the phrase 'where fields carry a freshness marker' is awkwardly worded and briefly obscures which fields it refers to.

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 must describe the return, and it does: it lists the response keys, explains the not-found case, and defines the freshness markers. It is close to complete for a single-read tool, missing only sibling routing.

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%, with both 'slug' (with format example) and 'include_archived' fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one person card') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows this fetches a single entity rather than a list. It never names person_list as the alternative, so the distinction from its closest sibling must be inferred from the word 'one'.

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 implied rather than stated: the tool is for retrieving a single card, and the note that a missing card returns {found: false} rather than an error tells the agent how to interpret a miss. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to person_list, person_history, or person_verify.

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