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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description is free to add operational detail it does provide: 'never select a person automatically', source-order preservation, default 50-row paging, and the 250-row clamp. That is genuine context beyond the annotations, though error/empty-result behavior is not covered.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the first establishes the two-step workflow and the no-auto-select rule, the second packs pagination limits and downstream chaining. Every clause carries routing or behavioral information.

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 an output schema exists, return-shape detail is unnecessary, and the description covers the multi-mode nature, pagination/clamping, ordering, and cross-tool chaining that an agent needs to call this correctly. Nothing material is missing for a 5-param read 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 100%, so the schema already documents query/person_id mutual exclusion, cursor semantics, limit clamping, and the credit_kind enum. The description largely restates the paging and default-category behavior rather than adding new parameter meaning, so the 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 states both operating modes precisely: name search returning candidates, and person_id lookup returning cast/guest/crew credits. It names specific verbs and resources and distinguishes itself from siblings by describing how its outputs route into tvmaze_get_show, tvmaze_get_episodes, and tvmaze_get_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 clear context for the query-vs-person_id decision and warns that name searches never auto-select a person, plus it names the downstream tools for each output field. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions (e.g., when to use tvmaze_get_cast directly instead of chaining through this tool), so it falls just short of 5.

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