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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining error tolerance, filtering by type, and prioritization of people with movies in cartel, going beyond annotation coverage.

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 concise with only a few sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes examples and usage tips. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Covers purpose, usage, and some behavioral aspects (fuzzy search, filtering). However, it lacks description of the output format (e.g., list of persons, IDs) and does not mention pagination or ordering beyond prioritization, leaving some gaps for a search tool.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'tipo' and 'solo_en_cartel' (prioritization) but does not fully compensate for the missing schema description of 'solo_en_cartel'.

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 searches for people (actors/directors) by name with error tolerance. Examples like 'almodovar' and 'scorcesse' illustrate usage, and it implicitly distinguishes from movie-focused siblings like find_movie.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when the user misspells a name or there is ambiguity. Also suggests using it before querying the latest movie or filmography, providing clear context for its application.

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