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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context: it returns a list of matching documents with specific fields and suggests passing the id to 'fetch' for further details. No contradictions.

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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

Given the single string parameter, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent), and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: what the tool does, result structure, and how to proceed with a returned ID.

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% (the only parameter 'query' has a description that matches the description). The description repeats the same information about search terms being film title, original title, or director name. It adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states it searches a film-criticism corpus and returns matching documents with id, title, url. It specifies searchable fields (title, original title, director name). However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'search_films', which may cause confusion about which to use.

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?

The description provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to find films by title, original title, or director name.' It also references the sibling 'fetch' tool for reading full packs. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it explicitly with other search-like siblings (e.g., search_films).

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