nv_fetch_person

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses the async behavior, immediate return status object, long-polling via get_workflow_result, and even explains pendingReason semantics ('queued' vs 'outsideWorkingHours'). This is exemplary transparency for a cloud-browser workflow tool.

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 long but every sentence earns its place, covering critical workflow details, result retrieval, and edge cases. It is well-structured into logical paragraphs: action overview, async flow, and pending reason explanations. No unnecessary filler.

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 tool's complexity (async, cloud-browser workflow) and absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the immediate return, the long-polling process, and the two pending reasons with actionable guidance. The only minor omission is the specific fields of 'basic information,' but that is outside the description's scope.

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% and the parameter personHashedUrl is adequately described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: opening a person page in Sales Navigator to retrieve basic information, and identifies the underlying action (nv.openPersonPage). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nv_fetch_company by focusing on person pages, and from non-prefixed fetch_person by its async workflow.

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 strong context on how to use the tool: it explains the async workflow, instructs to call get_workflow_result for the final result, and explicitly warns not to retry while a workflow is running (a clear when-not). However, it does not compare this tool to alternatives (e.g., search_people or fetch_person) for finding people, so there is a minor gap in sibling differentiation.

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