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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'normalized public' provenance note, but says nothing about rate limits, coverage limits, or failure behavior for a tool whose annotations carry most of the burden.

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 resource and its content examples, then the input constraint and sibling routing. 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 an output schema documenting the return shape and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the needed scope and input rule. It could go further on when to prefer this over other IMDb title sub-endpoints, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 meaning of id and url is documented there. The description adds a genuine constraint the schema lacks: exactly one of the two must be passed (the schema marks both optional with no oneOf). This is meaningful value beyond the structured fields.

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 (Returns) and resource (normalized public IMDb technical specifications) with concrete examples (runtime, sound mix, color, aspect ratio). It also names the sibling imdb_title and distinguishes its own scope from that title-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?

Gives an explicit selection rule for inputs ('Pass exactly one of id or url') and routes the agent to imdb_title for general title detail. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool versus other IMDb spec-adjacent siblings such as imdb_title_public_facts_analysis.

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