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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are newest first, and each result carries url, updated_at and production_dates.start where known.

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?

Dense but tightly packed with no filler; the core action leads and filter semantics follow. It reads as a compact reference block rather than prose, which suits a search tool.

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 usefully names the returned fields and the sort order, and covers the non-obvious filters. Only pagination behavior (page/limit interplay, free-tier cap) is left to the schema, a minor gap for an 11-param tool.

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 64% across 11 params, so the description must compensate and does: it clarifies q is title-only, spells out the stage enum values, explains state accepts two-letter US/Canadian codes or UK region names, and defines since vs updated_since. It leaves page, type and status to the schema, which is reasonable.

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 ('Searches and filters film and TV productions'), which clearly separates it from get_production and get_company. It never explicitly contrasts itself with search_companies, so sibling differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 clause 'q matches the title only (not companies or people)' implicitly routes company/people queries elsewhere, but no alternative tool is named and there are no stated exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied through filter semantics rather than explicit when-to-use guidance.

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