letterboxd_search

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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral disclosure: it mentions credential-free public data, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or what happens with invalid queries. The agent needs more context to understand side effects or constraints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description should compensate by hinting at the result format. It does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., list of items, metadata). Additionally, it does not explain the 'type' parameter or the 'limit' default. The description is too brief for a search tool.

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 does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema parameter descriptions; it simply restates the purpose without elaborating on parameter usage or defaults.

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 it searches Letterboxd and specifies the types of items searched (films, people, lists, tags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like letterboxd_film (specific film) or letterboxd_popular (popular items) by being a general search tool.

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 for broad search queries on Letterboxd, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other Letterboxd tools (e.g., for a specific film or person). No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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