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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned payload (rescheduling records, official trailers, official news) and notes multilingual input support, but says nothing about auth needs, idempotency, matching/fuzzy behavior, or error handling for missing titles.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the database scope and the verb, then the field list and input flexibility. Every clause earns its place, though the semicolon-heavy enumeration is slightly heavy.

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, no annotations, and a 1-param schema, the description does the heavy lifting well by listing the returnable fields and input languages. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from the near-identical sibling lookup 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?

The single parameter q has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that q accepts Chinese, English, or Japanese titles and giving three concrete examples, which is meaningfully more than the bare 'string' type in the schema.

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 — looking up a single title (查單一作品) — and enumerates the returned fields (production, distribution, director, release dates, schedule changes, trailers, news), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the highly similar sibling screen__lookup_any_title, leaving some ambiguity about which lookup tool to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The examples of acceptable input (沙丘3, Avengers Doomsday, 薬屋のひとりごと) hint at the use case but the description never tells the agent when to choose this over lookup_any_title or list_titles.

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