imdb_charts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: data is public and rows are normalized, and it lists valid chart values. However, it does not disclose what happens when the optional `chart` parameter is omitted, whether results are paginated, or what fields the normalized rows contain.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose immediately, then lists the concrete chart values. There is no filler or redundant content, and every phrase contributes to selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

For a simple tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential selection information by listing all chart values, and the schema covers limit constraints. The main gap is that 'normalized rows' does not specify the row fields, but that is not necessary for a 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly enumerating valid values for the `chart` parameter, which the schema's generic 'IMDb chart' description does not provide. The `limit` parameter is already fully documented in the schema with default and max values.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('public IMDb title charts') and explicitly enumerates all six supported chart values. This clearly distinguishes it from the many other IMDb tools in the sibling list, which focus on titles, names, search, or specific title 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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like imdb_search, imdb_title, or imdb_title_ratings. The chart-value list implies a chart-ranking use case, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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