imdb_title_company_credits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full disclosure responsibility. It describes a read operation (returns data) with no side effects, but omits information about authentication, rate limits, or potential errors. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 consists of two short, information-dense sentences. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and contains no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 tool's simplicity and absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: input constraints and expected output type. However, it could briefly mention the output structure or common use cases to enhance completeness.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds a critical constraint not in the schema: 'Pass exactly one of `id` or `url`,' which clarifies mutual exclusivity and improves usability.

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 returns 'normalized public IMDb company-credit sections for a title,' specifying the verb ('returns'), resource ('company-credit sections'), and scope ('for a title'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'imdb_title_credits' (broader credits) and 'imdb_title' (general info).

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'pass exactly one of `id` or `url`,' providing clear usage direction. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over siblings or exclude other scenarios, so it lacks explicit when/not guidance.

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