Search actors

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds worthwhile domain context that results come from the user's own catalog and are the cast of their footage rather than contacts. It says nothing about result size, ordering, or empty-match behavior beyond what annotations cover.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every clause carries meaning, with the 'not contacts' note earning its place as a disambiguator.

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 simple, annotation-covered read tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how it matches. Only the absence of guidance on result ordering/pagination keeps it short of full completeness.

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 query, tags, and limit are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by name or by the tags on them' loosely maps to the query and tags parameters but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (people/actors in the Fast Video Cataloger catalog) plus the matching basis (name or tags). The clarifying phrase 'not contacts' usefully disambiguates the domain, but it does not distinguish this from the sibling get_video_actors, which also deals with actors.

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 by saying it searches by name or by tags, but never states when to choose this over get_video_actors or other search tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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