Get studio

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: a fixed cap of 10 titles (not paginated), the fuzzy search behavior of the name parameter, and id precedence. These are not evident from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint or the schema, adding significant transparency.

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?

The description is concise yet comprehensive, with each sentence serving a purpose. It is front-loaded with the primary function, followed by limitations, usage nuances, and a clear alternative. No filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no required fields, output schema present) and the annotations, the description covers all relevant contextual aspects: what it returns, the cap, the fuzzy matching, the alternative tool, and input precedence. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Although the schema already describes both parameters (100% coverage), the description adds critical semantic information: the mutual exclusivity (provide this or that), the fuzzy matching nature of name, and the precedence rule when both are given. This goes well beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a studio's profile (name, animation studio status) and top 10 produced titles. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool search_studio, noting when one should be preferred over the other.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. search_studio ('reach for search_studio instead only when you need to browse multiple candidates'). It also clarifies the behavior with partial names and the precedence of id over name, giving clear decision-making criteria.

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