get_character_persons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool lists persons and returns formatted data or errors, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'formatted list' entails (e.g., structure, fields). This is a significant gap for a read operation with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying inputs and outputs without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-organized.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error conditions, data format) and usage guidelines relative to siblings, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer correctly.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'character_id' as 'The ID of the character', adding meaning beyond the schema's type annotation. With only one parameter clearly documented, this is sufficient for baseline understanding.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('persons related to a character'), with examples ('voice actors') adding specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_person_characters' (reverse relationship) and 'get_character_details' (different data), though not explicitly named.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_person_characters' (which lists characters for a person) or 'get_subject_persons' (which may have overlapping functionality). The description implies usage when you have a character ID and want related persons, but lacks comparative context.

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