search_persons

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns formatted search results or error messages, and mentions pagination behavior through limit/offset parameters. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid inputs.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, supported types, career filters, arguments, and returns. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the career filter list could be slightly more concise.

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 search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation but lacks important context. It doesn't explain result format details, error conditions, or how results are ordered. The mention of 'formatted search results' is vague without an output schema.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the meaning of career_filter with a complete list of valid values, clarifies that keyword is the search term, and explains that limit/offset are for pagination with their defaults. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool searches for persons or companies on Bangumi, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('persons or companies'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_characters or search_subjects, which search different entity types.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_characters or search_subjects. The description mentions what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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