imdb_title_connections

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pagination behavior (`total` can exceed returned rows, `has_more` signals more), the limit default and clamp (50/250), and the fact that `category` is free-text rather than an enum. This goes well beyond the schema, which only lists parameter formats.

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 efficiently structured: it opens with the purpose, then explains the output characteristics (examples, category, pagination, limit), and ends with the key invocation constraint. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler, and it is front-loaded with the tool's identity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials: what the tool returns, the pagination mechanism, and the parameter constraint. It mentions key response fields (`total`, `has_more`, `category`). While it could detail the exact structure of each connection entry, the information provided is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret the response's high-level shape.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by specifying that exactly one of `id` or `url` must be provided, which is not in the schema. It also clarifies the limit behavior, though that is already in the schema. The addition of the mutual-exclusivity constraint justifies a higher score.

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's function: it returns a bounded slice of a title's public connections, with concrete examples like remakes, spin-offs, and featured-in clips. This distinguishes it from sibling IMDb tools that cover ratings, credits, or similar titles, and the verb 'returns' is specific to the resource.

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 clear instruction to pass exactly one of `id` or `url`, which is crucial for correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like imdb_title_similar or imdb_title_episodes, leaving the decision of when to use this specific tool to the agent's inference.

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