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.