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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns possible matches for identification purposes, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose pagination, error handling, or the format of returned matches.

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 short and to the point. It front-loads the purpose with a clear verb and resource, provides concrete examples, and uses no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a 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 and the presence of siblings, the description covers the basic purpose and usage. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from specifying what fields are returned (e.g., movie title, ID). The phrase 'posibles coincidencias' is vague.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The main description does not provide additional details beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches for movies by title with typo tolerance and fuzzy matching. It provides specific examples that illustrate the intended use case, distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_movie_showtimes' or 'get_movie_details'.

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 explicitly says 'Úsala cuando el usuario no escriba correctamente el nombre de la película o haya ambigüedad', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the examples and context imply its role in a larger workflow.

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