Fetch Actor details

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable context on the output parameter's default behavior (all fields true except mcpTools) and the readme field's fallback logic (summary when available, otherwise full README). No contradiction with annotations.

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-organized and front-loaded, with a brief main purpose followed by parameter guidance and examples. Every sentence contributes, though the examples section could be trimmed, but it is not redundant.

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 nested output object and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers input semantics and provides examples. It doesn't over-explain return values since output schema exists. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that output is a nested JSON object, but the schema handles that.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the output parameter with usage patterns (e.g., 'inputSchema only', 'mcpTools for MCP Actors') and clarifies the readme field's behavior, going beyond the schema's boolean 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get detailed information about an Actor by its ID or full name.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like call-actor (executes) and get-actor-run (retrieves runs), and provides explicit examples of the resource type (e.g., 'apify/rag-web-browser').

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 states specific use cases: 'Use when querying Actor details, documentation, input requirements, or MCP tools.' It gives concrete examples but does not explicitly mention alternatives like search-actors for finding actors, so it lacks a formal when-not/alternative statement.

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