get_name_credits

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: result ordering ('newest first') and the cursor-based pagination contract ('next_cursor from the previous page').

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-line summary plus an Args block; every line conveys something usable and nothing is padded. The docstring formatting is slightly mechanical but front-loads the purpose correctly.

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?

Output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described; ordering and pagination are covered, all parameters are explained, and the category filter is fully enumerated. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it documents all four parameters, enumerates the eight allowed category values (information not present in the schema at all), and explains the cursor's provenance. It omits the limit default of 50 and doesn't say where the required id comes from (e.g., search_names, get_name).

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 resource and scope: a person's filmography, with an explicit ordering (newest first). It implicitly separates itself from get_title_credits by being name-centric rather than title-centric, but never names the sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 by the purpose statement; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of when to prefer get_title_credits or get_name. The category-omission note ('Omit for everything') is the only real usage instruction.

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