connects_person

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds a domain-specific reassurance ('Never changes connections') that reinforces the read-only behavior, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or open-world search behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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 compact and front-loaded: it immediately states the operation, the identifier requirement, the optional view, and the safety boundary in two short sentences. Every phrase contributes useful information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key invocation requirement: identifying a person by returned ID/UID or exact full name. It lacks an explicit pointer to when connects_people would be more appropriate and does not describe all view options, but the schema enum and output schema fill most of the remaining gaps.

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 does clarify the critical `person` parameter by specifying it accepts a returned ID/UID or an exact full name, and 'visible connections' hints at the `view` parameter. However, it does not explain `limit`, `offset`, or the `view` enum variants like `mutual` and `suggestions`, leaving some parameters to rely on their schema titles.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('a profile'), and scoping condition ('by returned ID/UID or exact full name'). It also mentions optional connection viewing, which differentiates this from the sibling connects_people by indicating this is for resolving a specific known person rather than listing/searching broadly.

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 communicates when to use the tool: when you already have a returned ID/UID or an exact full name. It also states a clear boundary ('Never changes connections'), which helps an agent avoid using it for mutation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use condition is clear enough.

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