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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe public read. The description adds only the qualifier 'public' about the award rows, with no detail on result volume, pagination, or coverage limits. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the argument constraint, then the sibling routing. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here. For a two-param, zero-required lookup, the description covers what the tool returns, which input to supply, and which sibling to use instead — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and would justify a baseline 3, but the description supplies the mutual-exclusivity constraint ('exactly one') that the schema does not express — both id and url are listed as optional with no oneOf/anyOf. It also confirms the expected id prefix and the URL shape, which the schema descriptions state only briefly.

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 ('Fetch public IMDb award and nomination rows') plus the target entity ('for a person'), and explicitly names the sibling it is not (imdb_title_awards). An agent can distinguish it from the title-awards tool without opening either 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 selection rule ('Pass exactly one name id (nm...) or person URL') and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ('Use imdb_title_awards for a title's awards instead'). Both the when-when-not and the alternative are explicit.

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