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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the breadth of returned content (dates, rescheduling history, trailers, news) and that queries work across Chinese/English/Japanese, but says nothing about auth needs, ambiguity handling for partial matches, or failure 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?

One dense sentence with the purpose and scope front-loaded and examples at the end. The mid-sentence enumeration is long but every item adds real scope information; nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it returns, what input forms are valid, and its single-work scope. The main omission is behavior on ambiguous or partial title matches, which matters given the overlapping lookup_any_title sibling.

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 'q' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate — and it does, stating that Chinese, English and Japanese titles are all accepted and giving concrete examples ('沙丘3', 'Avengers Doomsday', '薬屋のひとりごと'). This is meaningfully more than the bare schema 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('查單一作品') and enumerates the specific data returned (製作、發行平台、導演、上映時程、預告、新聞), so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It implicitly separates itself from list_titles by scoping to a single work, but never addresses the overlapping sibling lookup_any_title.

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?

Usage is implied by '單一作品' versus list-style siblings, and the multilingual examples show valid query forms. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus lookup_any_title, no exclusion for when a title is ambiguous, and no stated alternatives.

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