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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds meaningfully beyond that by disclosing an important content boundary: thumbnails are included but playback URLs are excluded, which directly shapes what the agent can expect from a call.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and appends the key exclusion; every clause earns its place with 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 present, return-value detail is not required. The description covers resource type, included media (thumbnails), and the notable exclusion, which is sufficient for a read-only metadata tool, though usage context is absent.

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% across all three parameters (id, url, limit), so the schema fully documents inputs. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 description names a specific resource (IMDb title trailer and clip metadata with thumbnails), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like imdb_title_images or imdb_name_videos. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling, but the resource scope is clear.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives such as imdb_title_images or imdb_title (videos vs. images vs. general title data). The video-resource naming implies context, but no condition, prerequisite, or exclusion is given.

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