Get Person

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format options (markdown/json), describes the error behavior ('Error: Resource not found' for invalid ID), and indicates what data is included ('Full person record including all attributes'). This provides practical usage information not captured in 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, error) and appropriately sized. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose. However, the 'Args' section could be more concise since it largely duplicates schema information that's already available to the agent.

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?

For a simple read operation with comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, parameters, return format options, error handling, and data scope. With no output schema, the description appropriately explains what's returned ('Full person record including all attributes').

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description's 'Args' section essentially repeats the schema information without adding significant semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states 'Get detailed information about a single person by their PCO ID' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('person') with clear scope ('single person', 'detailed information'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pco_list_people (which lists multiple people) and pco_update_person (which modifies rather than retrieves).

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('by their PCO ID' for a single person) but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. The sibling tools list shows pco_list_people as an obvious alternative for listing multiple people, but this isn't called out in the description itself.

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