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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so it's safe. The description adds that it 'tells you the exact next call', which is useful guidance on how to chain subsequent calls. But it doesn't specify what happens on invalid ids, though openWorldHint implies graceful handling. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, and outcome. No waste, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (single param, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the output fields (TMDB id, media type, title, year) and the use case. Minor gap: doesn't mention error handling for invalid ids, but openWorldHint mitigates that. For a simple tool, this is nearly comprehensive.

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 100% and the description reinforces the format 'tt0111161'. The description adds value by tying the parameter to the tool's purpose, making it highly useful for agents. No gaps.

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 resolves an IMDb id to TMDB id, media type, title, and year. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like movies_search, which are general lookups.

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 when you only have an IMDb link/id and need to call the other tools', providing clear when-to-use guidance and hints at the alternative (other tools) that require TMDB id. This is excellent routing.

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