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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what is returned (cast/crew names, roles, character names, profile links) and even notes the token cost. It does not mention rate limits, errors, or read-only status, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, return contents, and cost. Front-loaded with the main action and no redundant phrasing.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, return contents, and cost. It is self-sufficient and doesn't require additional context.

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 'tv_show_slug' with the same example (breaking-bad). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description precisely states the action: 'List cast and crew credits for a TV series by slug'. It names the specific resource (TV series cast and crew) and distinguishes from sibling tools like movie_cast_and_crew by explicitly limiting to TV series.

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: use this for TV series cast/crew by providing a slug. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the TV-series qualifier makes the intended use evident. No 'when not to use' is stated, so not a 5.

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