Actor or director profile

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: Filimo returns birth date/place while Namava returns bio text, the name matches the first search hit with exact matches preferred, `other_matches` holds near-name people, and series are deduplicated rather than listed per episode. These quirks materially change how an agent should interpret and present results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and later sentences are dense with useful specifics rather than filler. Slightly compressed phrasing ('Titles carry a `ref` for vod_title') asks the reader to infer the relationship, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (bio, birth data per site, title list, `ref`, `other_matches`, deduplicated series) and how input names resolve. For a 3-parameter read tool, nothing needed to call or interpret it is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining how `name` resolution works (first hit, exact name first, similar names surfaced via `other_matches`). It leaves `limit` semantics to the schema ('Max titles per site'), which is adequate but keeps it from a 5.

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 ('Look up an actor, director or writer on Filimo and Namava') plus the payload ('short bio and the titles they appear in'). It also separates itself from vod_title by noting that returned titles carry a `ref` for that tool, so an agent can route correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger phrase: use for "what has X acted in / directed on Filimo or Namava". It does not spell out when to prefer vod_search or vod_where instead (e.g., for unknown names or browsing-only queries), so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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