get_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only a listing of returned content, and adds nothing about unknown-id behavior, rate limits, or lookup failures.

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?

One sentence plus a single parameter line; the purpose is front-loaded and the parameter note is attached directly to the arg. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

With rich annotations, an output schema, and exactly one required parameter that the description documents in both accepted formats, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it. Only minor gaps remain (failure/not-found behavior).

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it specifies the IMDb name-id format (nm0000244) and that a full IMDb URL containing an id is also accepted. That is real added meaning beyond the bare "Id" string property.

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 and resource ("Get one person") and enumerates the payload (biography, dates, professions, known-for titles), which is more informative than the bare name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from search_names or get_name_credits, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: a reader infers this is the detail lookup once an id is known, while get_name_credits or search_names handle other needs. No explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or alternative routing is stated.

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