search_performers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and mentions error handling ('Raises: CallToolResult: With error if validation fails'), but doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises). Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the function, documenting the parameter, describing the return, and mentioning error handling. However, the 'ctx: MCP context (injected automatically)' documentation could be omitted since it's implementation detail rather than user guidance.

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 the tool's complexity (search function with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'SearchResponse with performer results' contains, how results are structured, whether there's pagination or sorting options, or what fields are returned. For a search tool that likely returns multiple results, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to properly use and interpret results.

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 minimal parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It states 'name: Performer name to search' which clarifies the parameter's purpose, but with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this is the baseline expectation. The description doesn't provide format examples, search behavior details (exact match vs partial), or character encoding considerations that would add meaningful value.

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's purpose as 'Search for performers by name', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_performer_details' (which retrieves details for a known performer) and 'search_movies' (which searches movies rather than performers). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_jav' or 'search_scenes', leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'search_performers' versus 'get_performer_details' (for known performers) or other search tools like 'search_movies'. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases beyond the basic function.

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