get_person_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the return content (biography, birth info, etc.) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or data freshness. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and resource, the second lists return fields. No wasted words.

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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and return content but lacks behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, errors) and doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (person_id as TMDB ID). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as where to obtain IDs or format constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the work.

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: 'Get detailed biographical information about a person' with specific resource types (actor, director, crew member). It distinguishes from siblings like search_people (which likely searches) and get_movie/tv_credits (which focus on credits rather than biography). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 biographical details are needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like search_people (for finding IDs) or get_movie/tv_credits (for filmography). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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