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

With no annotations, the description discloses accent/case-insensitive matching, result ordering (best match first, then Wikipedia coverage), and the special set-vs-filmed behavior for games/anime. The mention of the `relation` field adds useful behavioral context beyond a simple search.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose and matching rules, usage guidance with alternative, and special-case behavior for games/anime. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, filters, and a critical exception. It hints at result structure via the `relation` field, but doesn't fully list return fields or pagination behavior. Still, it provides enough context for correct tool invocation.

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 schema already provides full parameter descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the `kind` filter semantics, giving query examples ('bond', 'star wars'), and clarifying the `relation` field concept, which helps distinguish results.

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 'Find productions by name' and specifies substring matching behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling `where_was_it_filmed` by positioning itself as the pre-step for uncertain titles, and enumerates the kind filter options.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it when you are unsure of a title before calling where_was_it_filmed', giving a direct when-to-use instruction and an alternative. It also clarifies that games/anime are set-based, which prevents misuse.

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