imdb_title_ratings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral constraint—pass exactly one of id or url—and describes the return content. It does not mention edge cases, error behavior, rate limits, or read-only nature, leaving some transparency gaps.

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?

Two short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The purpose and return payload are front-loaded, and the invocation constraint follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lookup tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the required identifiers, the mutual-exclusivity rule, and the expected return fields. Minor gaps include the exact id format (e.g., 'tt1234567') and absence of error-handling guidance, but these are not critical for 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema: the 'exactly one of id or url' constraint clarifies that the parameters are mutually exclusive alternatives, which the optional, non-required schema does not convey.

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 states a clear resource (IMDb title ratings) and enumerates exactly what is returned: aggregate rating, vote count, ten rating buckets, and country rating summaries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like imdb_title, imdb_title_reviews, or imdb_title_technical_specs.

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 implies usage context through the resource name and return fields, making clear it is the ratings-breakdown tool. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or point to a sibling for related data.

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