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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the core semantic behavior (theme word to keyword ids) and the intended downstream use, which is meaningful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the purpose, the second the downstream usage. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with read-only annotations, the description is complete: input meaning, output concept, and downstream destination are all covered. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by saying the result is keyword ids to pass to movies_discover.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'query' and 'limit' are fully documented in the schema. The description's examples reinforce the meaning of 'query' but do not add substantive parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a theme word to TMDB keyword ids', with concrete examples ('zombie', 'heist', 'time travel'). It also identifies the downstream role in movies_discover, which clearly separates this keyword-resolution tool from the sibling movie lookup tools.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool: when it has a theme word and needs TMDB keyword ids. It also explicitly says to pass the resulting id to movies_discover, giving clear downstream context. It does not mention exclusions such as using movies_search for title-based queries, so it lacks full when-not guidance.

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