imdb_title_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that playback URLs/manifests are never returned, that the server truncates results with no usable continuation cursor, that `total` may exceed returned rows, and that `has_more` reports the truncation condition. It also states limit default/clamp behavior. This is rich, useful context beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, negative scope, pagination caveat, and parameter constraints. The most important identifying information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 a simple 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what data is returned, what is excluded, how pagination behaves, how limits work, and the id/url exclusivity rule. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by stating 'Pass exactly one of `id` or `url`', a mutually-exclusive constraint not captured in the schema (where no parameters are required). It also reinforces the limit defaults and clamps, though those are already in the schema. This added constraint justifies a 4.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Returns public title video metadata and thumbnail URLs only.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly stating the resource scope (title videos) and what it does not return ('playback URLs and media manifests are never returned'). This separates it clearly from imdb_name_videos and other imdb_title_* tools.

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 clear context about what the tool does and its constraints, so an agent can infer when to use it (when needing public title video metadata). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions. The 'Pass exactly one of id or url' instruction is parameter guidance rather than sibling differentiation, so it stops short of a 5.

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