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 value beyond them by describing the return shape (title cards with critic and audience scores when available), which tells the agent what it will actually get back. No permissions or rate-limit caveats, but for a read-only search that is minor.

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, zero waste: the first states what it does, the second states what it returns and the intended workflow position. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated.

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 exhaustive explanation, and the annotations cover the read-only, open-world profile. Combined with the described discovery-before-detail workflow, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% with only two parameters (query, limit), both already documented in the schema including the limit default and max. The description adds no syntax or format detail for query, so 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 (search) and resource (Rotten Tomatoes' movie and TV title catalog) plus the matching mechanism (by title or keyword). It also distinguishes itself from the detail siblings by framing itself as the discovery step before fetching a specific title's details.

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 says to use this to discover films and series before fetching a specific title's details, giving a clear when-to-use and pointing at the detail-tool handoff. It does not, however, contrast against the browse tools (rottentomatoes_browse_movies/browse_tv), so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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