Search performers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description attempts to add behavioral context about query exclusivity and catalogue omission, but the phrasing is confusing and misleading. It refers to 'two paths' and treats 'scene_count' as a path when it is only a sort enum value in the schema, potentially misleading the agent into expecting a nonexistent mode. This detracts rather than adds clarity.

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 only three sentences long but is unnecessarily convoluted. Phrases like 'every typed argument is then reported as not received' and 'its unnarrowed first page is no answer to a name' are obscure and hard to parse. It is not concise in meaning and lacks clear structure, making it more difficult to understand than a shorter, straightforward description would be.

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 search tool with 11 parameters and complex cross-catalogue behavior, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify whether a query is required, what constitutes the 'two paths', or how the 'scene_count' sort option works. The output schema may document return values, but the invocation semantics remain ambiguous, which would hinder an agent from using the tool correctly.

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 only 45%, so the description needed to compensate for the many undocumented parameters (name, page, sort, limit, sources, direction). It only elaborates on 'query', and does so redundantly with the schema's own description. The mention of 'scene_count' is not a parameter and adds confusion. No meaningful guidance is given for the other parameters.

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 tool's purpose as searching performers across configured catalogues ('Ask every configured catalogue for performers'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by indicating a cross-catalogue search scope, though it does not explicitly compare with search_scenes or get_performer. The verb 'search' is implied by the title, making the intent clear.

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 provides a key usage constraint: 'The two paths are exclusive' and 'query' causes other arguments to be 'reported as not received.' This helps the agent avoid sending conflicting parameters. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus search_scenes or get_performer, nor does it state whether a query is required. The guidance is partial and lacks explicit alternatives.

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