Search staff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, establishing the operation as non-mutating. The description adds value by clarifying that the return value is specifically AniList IDs for use with get_staff, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination specifics, rate limits, or error scenarios. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It states the action, target, and output purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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?

For a simple read-only search tool with a rich schema and an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and how to chain it with get_staff, while the schema and annotations cover parameters and safety. There is no missing critical information for this level of complexity.

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%: the schema already fully documents all three parameters (term, page, perPage) with meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that 'term' is a staff name. Per the rubric, this lands at the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Search AniList') and resource ('staff members by name'), and further specifies the output purpose ('Returns AniList IDs to use with get_staff'). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_character or search_studio by both its target and its downstream workflow.

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 clear usage context by stating the results are intended for use with get_staff, indicating when to use this tool (when you need a staff ID for subsequent detail lookup). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a perfect 5, but the implied workflow is strong.

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