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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds that rows are 'normalized' from 'public' charts, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 concise: three sentences. The first sentence states what it does, the second lists chart values (though redundant with schema), and the third points to an alternative. It is front-loaded and waste-free, though listing chart values again is slightly redundant.

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 has an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to call it. It mentions the data source (public IMDb charts) and an alternative tool. However, it could clarify that no other filters apply, which would help avoid misuse.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description repeats the chart values and limit details, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Returns normalized rows from public IMDb title charts.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like imdb_title or imdb_search. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with imdb_search other than the final sentence.

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 says to use 'imdb_search' for title search, implying this tool is for chart data. It provides implicit guidance by naming an alternative, but lacks explicit when-to-use statements or exclusions (e.g., 'Use this to get top-rated lists, not for individual title details').

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