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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). The description adds real context beyond them: the data comes from public Person JSON-LD and a credential-free module, so the agent knows no auth is needed, and it discloses that output is 'normalized'. It does not describe rate limits or failure behavior when neither/both identifiers are supplied.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the exactly-one parameter rule, then the alternative-tool routing. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers what it returns, the one-of identifier constraint, the credential-free data source, and a sibling alternative, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around edge-case behavior, but it is essentially complete.

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 the schema already explains what url and path are, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds a semantic constraint the schema does not encode: 'Pass exactly one of path or url', since the schema lists both as optional with no oneOf. That mutual-exclusivity rule is genuinely useful additional meaning.

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 a specific verb and resource: it returns Rotten Tomatoes person metadata plus filmography rows. That is clearly distinct from the movie/series/review siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with adjacent person tools (e.g. tmdb_person, letterboxd_person), so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 an explicit alternative route: 'Use imdb_name to retrieve iMDb name detail', which tells the agent when to pick a different tool. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over rottentomatoes_search or the movie/series tools, so context is clear but exclusions are incomplete.

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