Search people

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so no contradiction exists and the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the returned record contains the mal_id that feeds get_person. It does not add constraints such as pagination behavior, result limits, or failure modes, but for a simple search tool with a bundled output schema, the added context is modest and no more than a 3.

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, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb and scope; the second states the returned identifier and its downstream consumer. Every word 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?

For a read-only external search with six self-documenting parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete: purpose, entity scope, and return-usage linkage. The only omitted piece would be explicit with large result sets, but pagination parameters are present in the schema. There is nothing an agent needs for selecting this tool that is materially 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (q, page, sort, limit, letter, order_by) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only 'by name,' which restates what q already says. At 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies. The description is fine, but everything semantic is already in a structured form.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('MyAnimeList people'), and further narrows the entity with examples: voice actors, directors, authors. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools (search_anime, search_manga, search_characters) by entity, and from get_person by operation. The agent can tell exactly what this tool covers.

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 the key workflow by saying the tool 'Returns the mal_id needed by get_person,' which tells the agent how to chain it with the downstream fetch. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving the choice between search_people and other search tools to inference. This is implied usage, not explicit routing.

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