get_performer_details

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 it returns a complete profile (behavioral trait) and mentions error conditions (validation fails, performer not found), which adds context. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies read).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by structured sections (Args, Returns, Raises). Each sentence earns its place by adding value (e.g., error details). Minor verbosity in 'Dictionary with complete performer details' could be tighter, but overall efficient.

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 (0%), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and errors, but lacks details on output structure (beyond 'Dictionary'), behavioral traits like idempotency, or integration with siblings. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'performer_id' as a 'Unique performer identifier', which clarifies beyond the schema's title 'Performer Id'. The 'ctx' parameter is noted as injected automatically, preventing misuse. With only 1 parameter, this is sufficient for a high score, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., UUID).

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 'Get' and the resource 'complete performer profile', specifying what data is retrieved (bio, measurements, aliases, external links). It distinguishes from siblings like search_performers (which likely returns multiple results) by focusing on a single detailed profile. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_content_details, which might be a minor gap.

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 when you need detailed information about a specific performer, as opposed to search_performers for finding performers. It mentions 'performer not found' error, hinting at prerequisites (valid ID). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives beyond what's inferred from sibling names.

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