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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: the actors are fictional, photo URLs should be inspected for physical traits, and no rights declaration is required.

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 purpose and usage are front-loaded, and the text is dense but mostly earned. The arguments JSON example is useful, though the single long paragraph could be structured more cleanly.

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 catalog with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the catalog returns, how to use an actor, and the rights policy. It could say more about whether results are paginated or how lang filters the catalog, but it is largely complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The description supplies a concrete arguments example, which helps with invocation. However, it does not add much semantic detail beyond the schema, which already documents client_id as a workspace ID and lang as an ISO language code; the example largely repeats what the schema conveys.

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 — list ready-to-use fictional actors — and immediately contrasts them with real people. It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this catalog provides.

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?

Gives concrete workflow guidance: propose 2-3 actors by name and pass the chosen id to kelpo_expert_prepare with source catalog. It also says no rights declaration is needed, which is valuable context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this versus kelpo_list_people.

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