search_media_or_person

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses fuzzy search ('模糊搜索') and the return type ('媒体信息列表'), but leaves significant ambiguity: searching for 'person' still returns 'media info list', and there is no mention of read-only behavior, pagination, or error scenarios.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Although the tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not clarify the return structure for person searches (the tool name says 'media_or_person' but returns 'media info list'), and it lacks usage guidance or behavioral expectations beyond fuzzy search.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: type_name as '类型 (media/person)' and name as '名称 (模糊搜索)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, particularly the 'fuzzy search' qualifier for name.

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 that it searches for media/actor information by name, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like discover_douban_media or discover_tmdb_media, but the scope (media/person) is clear.

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 name-based searches ('根据名称搜索'), but provides no explicit context about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions.

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