imdb_title_trivia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is 'normalized public' trivia rows, indicating read-only and source quality. However, it lacks details about potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The behavior is adequately, but not richly, described.

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 exceptionally concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, output nature, and parameter rule. The key information is front-loaded with the tool name and immediate clarification.

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 lack of output schema and simple parameters, the description covers essential aspects: what the tool returns, input requirements, and data type. It does not address pagination or limits, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, it is largely sufficient.

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% coverage describing 'id' and 'url'. The description adds the critical rule that exactly one must be used, which is not enforced by the schema (required: []). This helps the agent avoid invalid calls.

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 trivia rows for a title,' specifying both the action (returns) and resource (title trivia). It distinguishes from sibling tools like imdb_title_goofs or imdb_title_quotes by explicitly naming 'trivia.'

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 usage constraint ('Pass exactly one of `id` or `url`') but does not compare this tool to alternatives or specify when to use it over other IMDb title sub-tools. The context of sibling tools suggests many similar functions, but no explicit guidance is given.

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