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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: nonempty queries default to all records ranked by relevance, empty arguments open all records newest-first, full films retain normal access requirements, and it forbids inventing films on no-match. That is meaningful operational disclosure.

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?

It front-loads the purpose well, but then bundles agent-behavior directives into a dense run-on of clauses, some of which overlap (query defaults and empty-args defaults could be tightened). It is serviceable but not cleanly structured or maximally economical.

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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills in query interpretation, filter preservation, and no-match handling, making it largely complete for correct invocation despite the unsupported filter parameters.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies query semantics (bare titles, translation behavior) and the sort default split (relevance vs newest). The 11 nested filter fields (genre, scope, topic, country, director, festival, languages, durations) are left entirely to their names, leaving a substantial gap.

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+resource ('Search and display documentary titles, filmmakers or topics inside GuideDoc'), so the job is unambiguous. It does not name any sibling (catalogue_search, search_documentaries, recommend_documentaries) to help an agent distinguish it, which keeps it below a 5.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance ('use for bare or ambiguous titles before answering from another meaning') and when-not ('Honor explicit translation/unrelated requests'). It also covers edge cases (no matches, empty args, preserving user filters), but never names the alternative tools an agent should switch to, so it stops short of a 5.

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