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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the return shape (release year, genre, directors/camera operators as {id, name} with catalogue person ids) and pagination behavior (15 per page with a true total). It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but that is a minor gap.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences that each carry payload: provenance/scope, filtering and return shape, pagination. No filler, though the return-shape sentence is long and could be trimmed slightly.

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, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so well (fields, nested {id, name} persons, true total, page size). What remains missing is any indication of when this catalogue is the right choice versus the adjacent archive/library tools.

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%, and the schema itself documents that name is the only upstream-honoured filter and that other parameters are ignored. The description restates the name-as-title-filter use but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (search) and resource (Georgian national film catalogue / kinokatalogi), adds scope detail (652 newsreels, documentaries, features) and provenance (National Archives of Georgia). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like archives_library_search and archives_fonds_browse without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the core usage rule ('filter by title with name', omit to list the whole catalogue), which is actionable. However it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this film catalogue over the sibling archive tools, so routing guidance is left to inference.

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