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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: no authentication required, exact actress-name matches return an actress page, and result URLs point to this site's work/actress pages. This is helpful without contradicting the 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 four short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the database scope and search capability, then adds the exact-match exception, authentication note, and URL behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter search tool with a full output schema and readOnly annotation, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: query scope, floor options, exact-match behavior, authentication requirements, and result URL semantics. The pagination limit and floor code meanings are already present in the input schema, so no critical gaps remain.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics by explaining what kinds of queries are valid (title, product number, manufacturer, actress name), the exact-match behavior, and the database coverage behind the 'floor' parameter. These details go beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 (keyword search), a concrete resource (the AV actress identification AI database over three named stores), and enumerates the searchable fields: title, product number, manufacturer, and actress name. It also distinguishes itself by noting the exact-match actress-page behavior, which helps separate it from identify_actress even though that sibling is not named.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: any keyword search across the specified database, with optional floor filtering. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare it to identify_actress, so it falls short of the top score, but the supported use cases are sufficiently clear.

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