imdb_title_similar

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds some useful behavioral context: output is 'normalized titles' from 'public' recommendations, and exactly one of id/url must be passed. However, it doesn't disclose what happens with invalid inputs, whether both id and url provided causes an error, or whether the response is a list/array. It's adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical usage constraint is placed at the end. Every word 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?

The tool is a simple single-purpose endpoint with 2 optional parameters and 100% schema coverage. The description covers what it returns and that exactly one of the two identifiers is needed. However, it does not state what the response structure looks like (list of titles vs paginated), what error cases exist (e.g., both params set, no params set), or any rate-limit/public-data caveats. For a simple tool this is acceptable but has gaps.

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 itself documents both parameters with descriptions ('IMDb title id' and 'Absolute IMDb title URL'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces how the parameters relate to each other ('Pass exactly one of id or url'), which adds value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the mutual exclusivity note is the only added semantic.

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 precisely what the tool does: returns normalized titles from IMDb's public 'More like this' recommendations. It names a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('IMDb's public More like this recommendations'), and the output ('normalized titles'). It is distinguishable from siblings like imdb_title, imdb_search_title, and justwatch_title_similar.

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 explicitly instructs the caller to 'Pass exactly one of id or url', which is a clear usage constraint. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives like imdb_title or imdb_title_similar, but the phrase 'More like this recommendations' plus the explicit parameter exclusivity gives a reasonable usage context. A brief mention of alternatives would make it a 5.

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