Show Visitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: exact required permission scopes ('Read detailed stats') and the delegate-to-contact token path, which an agent needs before calling. It stops short of noting rate limits or return behavior.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the body is dominated by a verbose, oddly formatted permission block that ends with the dangling fragment 'Read-only account operation.' It is usable but not tightly written.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally say what 'detailed information' is returned; it does not. It is otherwise adequate, covering authentication fully, and is reasonable for a simple single-resource get.

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%, so both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: it returns detailed information about a specific visitor, and the required visitor_key reinforces single-record retrieval. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_visitors, but the singular 'a specific visitor' makes the scope reasonably clear.

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: fetching details for one known visitor by key. There is no explicit 'use this instead of list_visitors when you already have a visitor_key' guidance, though the singular framing hints at it. The permission requirements give prerequisite context but not alternative-selection guidance.

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