Search staff

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds the behavioral detail that bios are omitted by default unless includeDescription is set, and that results are IDs intended for get_staff. This enriches the agent's model of the tool without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, return value, and a key behavioral caveat with zero redundancy. All information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return structures are documented elsewhere. The description covers purpose, key output, and the one non-obvious behavior (bio omission), making it adequate for an agent to invoke correctly without further context.

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 covers all 4 parameters at 100%, including detailed descriptions for includeDescription and pagination. The description's mention of bio omission mirrors the schema's includeDescription description, adding no new semantic information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Search' plus resource 'staff members by name' clearly states the action and scope. It effectively distinguishes from get_staff by noting it returns AniList IDs for subsequent lookup, making its role in the workflow explicit.

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 implies usage for finding staff IDs before calling get_staff, and explicitly recommends get_staff for a single entry's full bio via the includeDescription parameter note. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other search tools like search_character, so it falls short of a full when-not guide.

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