Compare People

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral guarantees: 'Every number comes from the same code path a ranking uses, so a value here and the same value in a rank_people row cannot disagree.' It also discloses the return shape ('one compact row per person... plus, in query_summary.pairs...') and that IDs are accepted 'in either form.' These are non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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 long but every section earns its place: purpose, examples, consistency guarantee, return summary, ID format, and routing to siblings. The examples are illustrative rather than padding. It could be slightly tighter, but it remains well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with an output schema and two parameters, the description covers the core context: what is compared, how results are shaped, how IDs are passed, and how to follow up for shared titles. Missing details like behavior for null or fewer-than-two person_ids and the single-person get_person alternative are not critical given the schema and sibling context, but they would make it more complete.

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 clarifies person_ids semantics by saying 'Takes IMDb name ids in either form' and implies a two-to-ten count, which the schema does not enforce. However, it does not explain the credit_definition parameter in prose; it only hints at consistency with ranking. With schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description should compensate more, so this is adequate but not strong.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Put two to ten named people side by side on the same measures.' It also includes illustrative queries and explicitly distinguishes itself from search: 'It is a comparison, not a search.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like search_people and rank_people.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'to find the people first, use search_people or rank_people, then pass their ids here' and 'For the titles two of them actually share, follow up with find_collaborations in shared_titles mode.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus the relevant alternatives.

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