Read a person

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

Even with readOnlyHint and related annotations covering safety, the description adds valuable behavioral context: date formatting varies by page, missing dates are explicitly reported, the category prefix may be omitted, and the output should credit IMSLP with a link. This goes well beyond what annotations or schema state.

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 longer than average, but every sentence contributes: result contents, category format, date-format caveat, sibling distinction, and attribution requirement. It is dense but not padded, though it could be slightly tightened without losing value.

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 exists, the description sufficiently covers how to invoke the tool, what inputs are expected, the variability of life-date formatting, and even user-facing attribution instructions. Nothing critical for correct usage 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description enriches the single parameter by explaining the category convention, the optional prefix, and how to obtain the category via search_people. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's own text.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('what IMSLP holds about a person'), enumerating the exact facets returned: name, life dates, aliases, registers, and off-site addresses. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_person_works, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly contrasts with list_person_works ('This reads the person; list_person_works reads what they wrote') and directs agents to search_people for finding the category. It does not enumerate every sibling exclusion, but it gives clear context for the main alternatives.

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