tmdb_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: unscoped queries interleave results across types rather than returning the top-ranked single type. It also states 'Credential-free public TMDB data', which clarifies authentication expectations. This is more than baseline, though it does not cover rate limits or error handling.

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 three tight sentences: the first adds the verb, the second defines scope, the third explains a key behavior. No redundant filler, every sentence contributes, and it is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 description covers purpose, scope, cross-type behavior, and auth requirements. It is sufficient for a straightforward search tool with a simple schema, though it omits an explicit return format description and alternative-tool references. Overall, it provides solid contextual grounding for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (query, type, page, limit). The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline case for high coverage.

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's function: 'Searches TMDB movies, TV shows, and people.' It also explicitly distinguishes from more specific sibling tools (e.g., tmdb_movie, tmdb_tv, tmdb_person) by covering all three types. The interleaving note further clarifies that this is a cross-type search.

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 explains the core use case: an unscoped query that interleaves results across all three types. This implies when to prefer this tool over type-specific siblings, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear, but explicit exclusion/alternative guidance is missing.

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