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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are ordered by widest coverage, and importantly notes that each result carries a 'relation' field because some entries (video games, anime) were not filmed but SET there. This adds useful behavioral context beyond simple listing, but doesn't cover other aspects like pagination or error behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place: purpose, usage specifics, and a critical behavioral note. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with rich schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the query format, the order of results, and a key semantic detail about the 'relation' field. Could mention pagination or limit default, but the schema covers that. Overall adequate for the complexity.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds a bit of context about slug preference and examples, but mostly reiterates what the schema says. The baseline is 3 because schema coverage is high; the description adds some nuance but not substantial extra meaning.

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 explicitly states the tool answers the inverse question of 'where was it filmed' by taking a place and returning everything recorded as shot there, listing results with most widely covered first. It clearly identifies the verb+resource (returns productions for a place) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool where_was_it_filmed by framing it as the inverse question.

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 explains that this is the inverse of 'where_was_it_filmed' and specifies that a slug is preferred over a name, offering examples. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the clear context of the inverse question and the example usage provide adequate guidance. Sibling name helps but no direct comparison to other tools.

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