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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with a safe, closed-catalog read. It adds behavior beyond annotations: typo-tolerant matching, bilingual query support, and a precise statement of what comes back (StreamPick ids, release year, Korean subscription services).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then return contents, then the hand-off to where_to_watch. Every clause carries information an agent needs; there is no filler.

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 usefully summarizes the return payload, and for a 3-parameter read-only tool that is close to complete. The one gap is the unmentioned type filter, which the description never acknowledges.

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 coverage is 67%: query and limit are documented in the schema, while the type enum ('movie'/'series') field is unexplained in both. The description adds some meaning to query ('Korean or English, typos tolerated') but says nothing about the type filter or the max-10 limit, 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?

The definition states a specific verb and resource ('Find movies and series by title') and names the languages covered ('Korean or English') plus typo tolerance. It also clearly positions itself against the sibling where_to_watch, so an agent can distinguish the retrieval tool from the pricing/detail tool.

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 gives explicit downstream chaining guidance ('Use the id with where_to_watch for prices and details'), which tells the agent when this tool is the first step versus a follow-up. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. browsing new_releases or trending instead of searching), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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