get_photographer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals what the tool returns (hallmarks, lighting/palette/composition, prompt tokens, representative works) and implies a read-only lookup. It doesn't mention behavior for unmatched names or partial matches, but for a simple lookup this is reasonable coverage.

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 two sentences: the first states the function and outputs, the second gives usage context and examples. Every word contributes value, with no repetition or filler.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return contents, which is largely complete. However, it does not describe behavior for invalid or missing photographer names, which is a minor gap for a complete mental model.

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 input schema covers the single parameter fully (name with detailed description and examples), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds contextual examples but no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Look up a single photographer in the CrewOne 69-photographer style reference library') and enumerates concrete outputs (hallmarks, AI prompt tokens, representative works). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_photographers or search_equipment.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this when a user asks for a specific photographer style') with concrete examples. It does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives like list_photographers, so it falls just short of fully explicit guidance.

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