Celebrity By Api Ninjas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about how the tool behaves - no information about whether it's a read or write operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, error behavior, or what kind of data it returns. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this represents a complete failure to disclose behavioral traits.

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?

While technically concise (only 5 words), this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence fails to convey essential information about the tool's purpose and usage. Every sentence should earn its place, but this sentence provides almost no value beyond what's already in the tool name.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or any behavioral characteristics. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured metadata, leaving the agent with insufficient information to effectively use this 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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds zero additional information about parameters - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of combined usage, or clarify the overall search logic. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without parameter information in the description.

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 'API Ninjas Celebrity API endpoint' is tautological - it restates the tool name 'v1celebrity' without explaining what it actually does. It mentions 'Celebrity API' but doesn't specify the action (search, retrieve, list, etc.) or what resource it operates on beyond the generic 'endpoint' reference. There's no clear verb+resource combination that defines the tool's function.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or alternative approaches. With no sibling tools mentioned, the bar is lower, but the description fails to give any context about appropriate usage scenarios or limitations.

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