Read a person's record

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, non-destructive), the description reveals important behavioral caveats: the 'biographical information' is usually just a job title, depictions are external links not images, and the server does not read them. This adds significant value beyond the structured annotations.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: it lists carried fields, explicit omissions, cautions, and alternatives. It is well-structured, front-loading the core action before caveats, and remains focused despite its length.

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?

Given the output schema handles return values, the description fully covers the tool's operational context: what data is included/excluded, how to interpret ambiguous fields, the nature of depictions, and how the record relates to other tools. It is complete for this read-only 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches both parameters: author_id is tied to search_authors, and include_depictions is explained with ambiguity about what depictions represent. This adds useful context, though the schema already provides strong descriptions.

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 tool reads one person's record in a specific authority file, using a specific identifier. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it lists no works and that list_works should be used for that purpose.

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 provides explicit when-to-use context (after search_authors returns an identifier), what the record includes and excludes, and names alternatives like list_works for works and find_digitised for broader image gathering. This is strong guidance on tool selection.

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