search_actor_movies

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the data-source chain (TMDB primary with DuckDuckGo and Wikipedia fallbacks), which tells the agent results may vary in completeness or freshness. It does not disclose rate limits or degraded-mode behavior, so not a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence captures purpose and source strategy, followed by a compact, scannable Args block. Nothing is redundant beyond the harmless restatement of defaults that document intent inline.

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-value explanation is not required, and all three parameters are documented, which is sufficient for a simple read-only lookup. It stops short of covering edge cases such as unknown actor names or empty filmographies, which is the only real gap.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden and largely does: actor_name gets concrete format examples, limit is defined as 'maximum number of movies to return', and sort_by enumerates the accepted values 'popularity' or 'release_date' that the schema lists only as a free string (no enum). Remaining gaps are minor, e.g. what happens at very large limits or whether sort is ascending/descending.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Discover the full filmography for an actor', and names the primary data source (TMDB). This distinguishes it from search_movie_tmdb (single movie lookup) and get_actor_tmdb_profile (profile rather than filmography), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 'actor_name' framing implies it should be called when you have a person and want their body of work, and the fallback chain hints it is the resilient option. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to get_actor_tmdb_profile or search_movie_tmdb, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are stated.

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