connects_person

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

Annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this with 'Never changes connections.' It adds behavioral context about matching being by returned ID/UID or exact full name, which is not visible in the schema.

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?

One compact sentence conveys the action, key matching rule, optional view, and read-only guarantee without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient for the core lookup and connections views. The only notable gap is the lack of any explanation of the mutual and suggestions view variants, though the enum values make them discoverable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the person parameter's accepted formats and hints at the view parameter via 'optionally visible connections,' but it does not explain mutual/suggestions views or the limit/offset parameters, leaving part of the burden to schema constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), identifies the resource ('profile'), and states the exact lookup keys ('returned ID/UID or exact full name'). It also notes the optional connections view, which distinguishes it from broader list tools like connects_people.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when the caller has a returned ID/UID or an exact full name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the lookup-key phrasing provides enough context for an agent to choose it over listing-oriented siblings.

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