Person Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, which suggests a read-only action, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid IDs (e.g., errors vs. empty responses). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior and constraints.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence ('Get person details by ID') that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key input, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include (e.g., biography, filmography), potential response formats, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to fully guide usage, but it remains minimal, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the tool name and schema alone.

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 adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the single parameter 'person_id' as a TMDB person ID. The description mentions 'by ID', aligning with the schema, but doesn't provide additional context like ID format examples or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('person details by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_person or person_movie_credits by focusing on retrieval of details for a specific person ID rather than searching or listing credits. However, it doesn't specify what 'details' include, leaving some ambiguity about the scope of information returned.

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 when you have a specific TMDB person ID and need their details, which is clear from the phrasing 'by ID'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for searching without an ID) or name alternatives like search_person for when you don't have an ID. The context is implied but not fully articulated with exclusions or direct sibling comparisons.

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