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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that records are 'public' and results are 'normalized', but the 'up to 20' cap merely repeats the schema's limit max=20, and no return format, ranking behavior, or rate-limit context is added. Adds modest value over annotations.

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 with zero waste: the first front-loads the action and result scope, the second handles sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present the return values need no explanation, and annotations cover open-world read behavior. The description is sufficient to select and invoke the tool; only minor ambiguity remains about what the query matches against (title name only vs. broader fields).

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% (query and limit are both documented, including default 10 and max 20), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only confirms query is required and that output is normalized; it adds no syntax, matching, or formatting guidance beyond the schema.

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 (public IMDb title records) plus the result shape (up to 20 normalized results). It explicitly names the two sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from imdb_search_title and imdb_title without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes: use imdb_search_title for a title-ID lookup and imdb_title for one title's details, leaving free-text search to this tool. The when-to-use and the alternatives are both named, nothing 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.