imdb_name_awards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool is read-only ('Returns...'), which implies no side effects. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or the fact that only public awards are returned. The term 'normalized' is vague. Overall, minimal but not misleading.

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 extremely concise: two sentences conveying purpose, output, and parameter usage. No redundant or extraneous information. The structure places the core purpose first, followed by the key parameter rule.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should briefly describe the structure of the returned data (e.g., 'includes award name, year, category') to help the agent understand what to expect. It only says 'award rows', which is vague. The tool has only two parameters, so the input side is well-covered, but the output side is under-specified.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with basic descriptions for 'id' and 'url'. The description adds value by enforcing 'exactly one of id or url', which is a critical usage constraint not present in the schema (where both are optional). This prevents common errors. However, no further details on parameter semantics are added.

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 the tool returns 'normalized public IMDb award rows for a person', specifying both the resource (awards for a person) and the action (returns). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'imdb_name' and 'imdb_name_credits' by focusing on awards, not basic info or credits.

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 a useful constraint: 'Pass exactly one of id or url', guiding parameter usage. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use imdb_name vs imdb_name_awards). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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