Tectova Runway Records

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description isn't burdened with safety disclosure. It adds genuinely useful traits beyond that: results are ordered newest first and paginated at 25 per page, and the payload includes show counts and a cast register.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the input requirement. Slightly dense phrasing ('the faces of the house and its shows with a cast register') but no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies ordering, page size, and slug provenance, leaving little an agent needs to guess before calling it.

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 both slug and cursor are already documented in the schema, including the URL alternative and the next_cursor semantics. The description adds only the '25 per page' context that explains how the cursor is used, which is marginal above baseline.

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 names a specific resource (a brand's documented runway history on Tectova) and enumerates what it contains: show counts, the house's faces, and a cast register. It's clearly a retrieval tool distinct in scope from siblings like get_show_cast or get_talent_runway_record, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

"Input a brand slug from search_fashion_records" gives a concrete prerequisite and routes the agent to the sibling that produces the input. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., how this differs from get_show_cast for a single show), but the usage context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true), so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It does so by describing what each parameter combination returns and how the section parameter affects output volume. It is missing little beyond what annotations and schema already cover.

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 front-loads the core purpose and then walks through the input combinations in a logical order. It is somewhat long and overlaps with the schema, but every sentence contributes useful scoping information and there is no irrelevant 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 a complex five-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description completes the picture by explaining the country-only, city, and city-plus-season modes. It also covers the important season-default behavior and gives a concrete example, leaving no major gap for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema itself documents all five parameters in detail. The description reinforces the country/city/season interactions but largely repeats what the schema already says, and it does not add much new syntax or edge-case guidance beyond the season format.

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 resource: models of one nationality on Tectova's Big Four runway record, with behavior varying by country, city, and season. It is specific enough to identify the tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_talent_runway_record or get_show_cast.

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 gives strong context on how to use the country/city/season combinations, including the important warning that a city call without season spans every season since 2002 rather than the current season. It even supplies an example question and the exact season format. However, it does not name alternative tools or clearly state when to choose this over a sibling.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: pagination size ('50 per page') and the exact scope of returned fields, which tells the agent what a page contains.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the payload description and ends with the input requirement — no filler. It is slightly crammed with enumerated fields, but every clause carries information the agent can use.

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, return structure needn't be spelled out, and the description covers scope, provenance of the input, and page size. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether an undocumented/empty cast is possible or how to tell when paging is exhausted.

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 schema descriptions already explain both `show` (path or full URL, with provenance) and `cursor` (next_cursor). The description's mention of 'a show path from get_brand_runway_history or get_talent_runway_record' largely duplicates the schema text, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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+resource ('the documented cast of one runway show on Tectova') and enumerates the payload (house, season, city, date, design credits, models). It also distinguishes itself from the history/record siblings by naming them as the source of its input rather than as alternatives.

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 a clear precondition: the show path must come from get_brand_runway_history or get_talent_runway_record. That routes the agent away from guessing paths, though it doesn't state any explicit when-not condition or contrast with search_fashion_records.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the record is a documented/aggregated profile, but says nothing about coverage gaps or empty results for low-profile talent, which is the main behavioral surprise an agent could hit.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact field inventory and a short input instruction. The field list is dense but earns its place as a scannable summary; no filler sentences.

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 and idempotency, the description need not explain return structure; the field inventory gives enough for selection and the slug-source instruction closes the loop. Only the absence of guidance on empty/sparse records keeps it from a 5.

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 schema already explains that slug comes from search_fashion_records and may also be a full tectova.com/talent/ URL. The description only restates the slug provenance, adding no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: a talent's documented runway record on Tectova, with the exact scope enumerated (Big Four count, seasons, top houses, per-season rows, agencies, honours, collaborators). This clearly separates it from get_brand_runway_history, get_show_cast, and search_fashion_records.

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 closing sentence establishes the prerequisite workflow by telling the agent to obtain the slug from search_fashion_records, which is a genuine routing hint among siblings. It does not, however, state when not to use it (e.g., when a brand-level history is wanted instead).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful workflow context by positioning this as the initial name-to-slug resolver, but does not disclose matching behavior, result ordering, or rate/limit behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Two short sentences with zero wasted language, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the usage instruction.

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 simple search tool with rich annotations, a fully described input schema, and an output schema, the description covers purpose and entry-point usage well. It does not need to explain return values, but it could have mentioned that results are capped or clarify matching behavior; still, it is complete enough to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the query, type, and limit parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Find') and names the concrete record types ('models, creatives, fashion houses and agencies') plus the scope ('Tectova's runway record'). It is clear what the tool does, but unlike the strongest examples it does not explicitly name a sibling tool to contrast with, relying on 'Use this first' to imply the discovery role.

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 gives clear usage context: use this first to resolve a name to a slug, which tells the agent this is the entry point before using record-specific tools. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives explicitly, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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