Get top people

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, indicating a safe read operation with possibly changing results. The description adds only that the results are 'ranked overall', which is implied by the tool name. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but adds no significant new behavioral context.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a usage guideline. Very efficient and front-loaded.

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 is simple with a straightforward purpose. The description covers the main use case, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It could briefly mention the ranking basis (e.g., favorites count), but it's not essential for usage.

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% with clear parameter descriptions for 'page' and 'limit'. The tool description does not add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 description clearly specifies the verb 'get', the resource 'popular/favorited people', and the categories (voice actors, staff, authors). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_people' by stating the purpose is for overall ranking, not specific lookups.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use 'search_people' for looking up a specific person, providing a clear alternative. However, it does not mention other relevant siblings like 'get_person' or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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